← All Phrases

“scrutiny assessment”

Assessment ProceduresSection 143(3)Section 143(3)7,671 judgments

The decision most relied on for scrutiny assessment is CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (332 ITR 167), cited in 897 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on scrutiny assessment

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.
332 ITR 167 · 2011 · High Court
897
citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment under Section 263 merely because the assessment order does not explicitly reflect an inquiry, or because the Commissioner holds a different opinion. An inquiry, even if considered inadequate, or an assessment based on a plausible view by the Assessing Officer after due examination, does not automatically make the order erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO
203 ITR 456 · 1993 · Supreme Court
396
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are valid even after a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3), provided the Assessing Officer forms a reason to believe, based on definite, specific, and reliable information, that income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to fully and truly disclose material facts.

Sanjay Bimalchand Jain v. PCIT-1, Nagpur
89 Taxmann.com 196 · 2018 · High Court
251
citing judgments

The exemption for long-term capital gains on share transactions is unavailable if the assessee fails to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of gains arising from dubious share transactions designed to convert unaccounted income into tax-exempt capital gains. Courts will uphold an assessment based on the Revenue's evidence of price rigging or penny stock manipulation if the assessee cannot provide cogent evidence for the abnormal rise in share value.

CIT v. British Paints India Ltd.
188 ITR 44 · 1991 · Supreme Court
204
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer has a duty to examine whether an assessee's books of account truly disclose the correct income and is not bound to accept the accounting system regularly employed by the assessee or methods followed in earlier years. Each assessment year is a distinct and self-contained unit for tax purposes.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Subodh Agarwal
149 Taxmann.com 373 · 2023 · High Court
194
citing judgments

Approval of draft assessment orders under Section 153D must be granted with due application of mind, not mechanically. Approving multiple cases, such as 38 in a single day, without proper scrutiny amounts to mechanical approval, rendering the assessment invalid.

ITO v. TechSpan India (P) Ltd.
92 Taxmann.com 361 · 2018 · Supreme Court
194
citing judgments

Reassessment under Section 147/148 is invalid if it constitutes a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer without any fresh tangible material, especially after the assessee made a full and truthful disclosure during the original scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3).

Narayanappa v. CIT
63 ITR 219 · 1967 · Supreme Court
187
citing judgments

The approval required from a higher authority under section 153D of the Income Tax Act is an administrative act, not a quasi-judicial one. Consequently, an opportunity of hearing is not required to be given to the assessee at the stage of obtaining such approval, provided the approving authority is competent.

CIT v. Ralson Industries Ltd. 5
288 ITR 322 · 2007 · Supreme Court
153
citing judgments

The Supreme Court affirmed that lower authorities are bound by decisions of higher authorities due to judicial discipline. It also clarified that the Commissioner, in exercising revisional power under Section 263, can conduct necessary inquiries to determine if an assessment is prejudicial to the Revenue.

Judgments citing scrutiny assessment

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Jefferies Llc, Mumbai

ITA 1026/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19
For Respondent: “i. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in the law, the
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 153Section 250Section 9

JIPL. For the impugned assessment year, the assessee company had filed its return of income declaring NIL income. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny assessment and during assessment proceedings it was noted by the Id. AO that receipts of Rs.72,80,069/- on account of “Administrative Support Services

DCIT It 3.1.1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jefferies Llc, Mumbai

ITA 1025/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 9

JIPL. For the impugned assessment year, the assessee company had filed its return of income declaring NIL income. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny assessment and during assessment proceedings it was noted by the Id. AO that receipts of Rs.72,80,069/- on account of “Administrative Support Services

DCIT It 3.1.1, Mumbai vs. Jefferies Llc, Mumbai

ITA 1024/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 9

JIPL. For the impugned assessment year, the assessee company had filed its return of income declaring NIL income. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny assessment and during assessment proceedings it was noted by the Id. AO that receipts of 6 ITA Nos 1023 to 1026 /Mum/2024 Jafferies LLC Rs.72

DCIT It 3.1.1, Mumbai vs. Jefferies Llc, Mumbai

ITA 1023/MUM/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024
For Respondent: “i. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in the law, the
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 153Section 250Section 9

JIPL. For the impugned assessment year, the assessee company had filed its return of income declaring NIL income. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny assessment and during assessment proceedings it was noted by the Id. AO that receipts of Rs.72,80,069/- on account of “Administrative Support Services

DCIT (It) 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are partly

ITA 7309/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

separation/termination of employees. In A.Y.2006-07 the Assessing Officer has considered this issue at Page No. 36 of his order. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings and on perusal of computation of income filed along with return of income, the Assessing Officer noted the observations made

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) -3, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 7010/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

separation/termination of employees. In A.Y.2006-07 the Assessing Officer has considered this issue at Page No. 36 of his order. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings and on perusal of computation of income filed along with return of income, the Assessing Officer noted the observations made

DCIT (It) 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 4788/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

separation/termination of employees. In A.Y.2006-07 the Assessing Officer has considered this issue at Page No. 36 of his order. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings and on perusal of computation of income filed along with return of income, the Assessing Officer noted the observations made

DCIT (It) 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are partly

ITA 4787/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

separation/termination of employees. In A.Y.2006-07 the Assessing Officer has considered this issue at Page No. 36 of his order. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings and on perusal of computation of income filed along with return of income, the Assessing Officer noted the observations made

The Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) - Range -3, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are partly

ITA 4767/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

separation/termination of employees. In A.Y.2006-07 the Assessing Officer has considered this issue at Page No. 36 of his order. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings and on perusal of computation of income filed along with return of income, the Assessing Officer noted the observations made

The Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) - Range -3, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are partly

ITA 4766/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

separation/termination of employees. In A.Y.2006-07 the Assessing Officer has considered this issue at Page No. 36 of his order. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings and on perusal of computation of income filed along with return of income, the Assessing Officer noted the observations made

Bhartiya Jnanpith, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward Exemption 1(3), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 154

appellant itself had filed original return and a revised return declaring income of Rs. 1,11,65,510/-. The return was subjected to scrutiny assessment and this issue now being raised of the interest income being subjected to taxation twice was never raised in course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings ... assessee itself files an original return and a revised return declaring an income of Rs.1,11,65,510/- and thereafter pursuant to scrutiny assessment this income as per original return as well as revised return is accepted, then how can the appellant have a grievance against the assessment order

Bhartiya Jnanpith, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward Exemption 1(3), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 154

appellant itself had filed original return and a revised return declaring income of Rs. 1,11,65,510/-. The return was subjected to scrutiny assessment and this issue now being raised of the interest income being subjected to taxation twice was never raised in course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings ... assessee itself files an original return and a revised return declaring an income of Rs.1,11,65,510/- and thereafter pursuant to scrutiny assessment this income as per original return as well as revised return is accepted, then how can the appellant have a grievance against the assessment order

Parkash Sachdeva, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 18, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2888/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2888/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2012-13) Parkash Sachdeva, S-286, Second Floor, Greater Kailash Ii, Delhi 110048 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaxps-6506-N बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 18, Jhandewalan, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110001 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri S.P Gogia, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri P.N Barnwal, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/06/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 17.08.2023, For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Shri P.N Barnwal, Representing The Department Submitted At The Outset That This Appeal By The Assessee Is Not Maintainable As No Addition Has Been Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao) In Assessment Order. The Cit(A) Has Dismissed

For Appellant: Shri S.P Gogia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N Barnwal, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

dated 30.12.2019 against which this appeal has been filed. Whatever additions are made in the case of the appellant, these were made under the scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) of the I.T Act.” 6. We are of consider view that this appeal filed by the assessee is misconceived. Since

DCIT (Exemption)- 2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Energy Development Agency, Mumbai

ITA 1765/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)

Mumbai under Section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act was valid during the relevant previous year and had not been withdrawn. During the regular scrutiny assessment proceedings for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2011-12 the Assessing Officer had allowed claim for exemption under Section CO No. 88 & 89/Mum/2023

Gagan Bansal, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 257/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 69A

above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 2. Facts, in brief, are that case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny assessment on account of cash deposit and verification of transaction. After issuing statutory notices and giving opportunity to the assessee the AO proceeded to frame the assessment

Msv International Inc, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3916/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 144C(8)

with the paper book containing 2809 pages. 4 MSV International INC Disallowance of Rental Expenses: Rs.1,61,11,333/- 5. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the assessee vide reply dated 23.11.2022 explained that agreements are bulky in nature and therefore a sample of rent agreements were submitted

Doaba Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., Muzaffarnagar vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4037/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Doaba Rolling Mills Pvt.Ltd., Vs Acit, Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar, Circle-1, Uttar Pradesh. Muzaffarnagar. Pan-Aabcd0822F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2024

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 41(1)

return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). Thereafter, the case was taken up for scrutiny assessment and statutory notices were issued u/s 143(2) of the Act to the assessee. In response to the statutory notices, Ld. Authorized Representative

Rama Garg, Sehore vs. DCIT-3(1), Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Rama Garg, Dcit-3(1), Gadhi Chok, Bhopal Chota Bazar, Vs. Nasrullaganj, Sehore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abcpg1140J Assessee By Shri R.K. Mangal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.06.2024

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

needs to be deleted. 3. The assessee is a trader and engaged in sale and purchase of food grains and pulses. In the scrutiny assessment completed u/s 143(3) on 17.03.2015 the Assessing Officer made various additions including on account of disallowance of electricity expenses which is relevant

B.K. Sales Corporation, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 36(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1498/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S. B.K. Sales Corporation, Vs. Acit, Circle 36 (1), D-1, Gf 5, Virat Bhawan, New Delhi. Commercial Complex, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, New Delhi – 110 009. (Pan : Aaafb4846K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Shri Ankur Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 Date Of Order : 26.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-12, New Delhi Dated 06.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. Revenue : Disallowance Of Service Charges/Commission Paid To Six Hufs Rs.3196047 – A. The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Ignored I. The Basic Fact Of The Assessee Being A Service Recipient Getting Such Services From Various Unrelated Entities.

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

that it is the trade practice of the assessee to pay commission. Assessee has paid commission earlier also and which was duly allowed during scrutiny assessment. The percentage of commission to turnover is consistent with earlier years. The net profit also is consistent with the earlier years. Further

Rishi Goyal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1690/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

matter of Capital Gain was jointly owned by the assessee Mr. Rishi Goyal with his mother Smt. Kshama Goyal, whose case was also under scrutiny assessment and assessment order dated 18/03/2014 was passed u/s 143(3) by ld. AO ITO Ward 23(2), New Delhi. It may kindly be noted