← 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

Ambereen Islam., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir- 40, Kolkata.

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1222/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

taxmann.com 89 (Kolkata-Trib.) held as follows:- “Return of income of assessee was Rs. 12 lakhs - As per CBDT instruction, jurisdiction for scrutiny assessment vested in Income-tax Officer and notice under section 143(2) must be issued by Income-tax Officer, Ward-I, Haldia and none other - But, notice ... fact that the Notice under Section 143(2) of the said Act is issued only once at the time of initiating of the scrutiny assessment, thereafter mere change of jurisdictional Assessing Officer within the same Range and/or Pr.CIT cannot affect the assessment proceedings?” 5. On the above substantial questions

Ramaswamy Akilandeswari, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 15(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1571/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1571/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ramaswamy Akilandeswari, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Old No. 16, New No. 35, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Ganapathy Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Aibpa6254B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 27.10.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 28.03.2018 Admitting Income Of ₹.5,00,620/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment Under Cass. The Assessing Officer Issued Statutory Notices Followed By 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 69A

filed the return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 28.03.2018 admitting income of ₹.5,00,620/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS. The Assessing Officer issued statutory notices followed by 2 I.T.A. No.1571/Chny/23 questionnaires which were duly served on the assessee. There were

K.P.Construction, Saidapet vs. ACIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 436/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 115BSection 153CSection 153D

same has been made on a change of opinion. 4.2. The genuineness of sundry creditors having been examined by the AO during the scrutiny assessment and the AO having accepted the same, has made the addition by reviewing his own earlier order which is impermissible in law. 4.3. The addition

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Rajashyama Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1346/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT- DR

assessee also honored the surrender and offered the surrendered income in its return of income. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings and on careful perusal of the seized ledger account, the Assessing Officer noticed that credit balance of creditor M/s Haryana Oil Corporation ... dismissed. 11. Ground No. 2 relates to addition of Rs. 10 lakhs on account of adhoc disallowance. 12. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed expenses under various heads in its profit and loss account and on perusal of the bills

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Rajshyama Constructions Pvt. Limited, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1332/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT- DR

assessee also honored the surrender and offered the surrendered income in its return of income. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings and on careful perusal of the seized ledger account, the Assessing Officer noticed that credit balance of creditor M/s Haryana Oil Corporation ... dismissed. 11. Ground No. 2 relates to addition of Rs. 10 lakhs on account of adhoc disallowance. 12. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed expenses under various heads in its profit and loss account and on perusal of the bills

Addl.CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi vs. Idemitsu Lube India P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7950/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Addl.Cit, Vs M/S. Idemitsu Lube Pvt.Ltd., Special Range-04, 603, 6Th Floor, Eros New Delhi Corporate Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aabci5684A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32A

filed its return of income on 29.11.2014, declaring a loss of INR 96,49,05,777/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and the assessment was framed vide order 27.12.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The Assessing Officer (“AO”) noted

Nirmal Debnath, Nadia vs. ITO, Ward- 54(3), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1374/KOL/2023[201`7-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 69A

that the assessee has filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.2,96,150/-. This return of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS and a notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer found that the assessee

Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Energy Solution Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

ITA 739/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountαντ Μεμβer

For Appellant: Dhanesh Bafna a/wFor Respondent: Anil Sant

Limited (TL) and Babcock & Wilcox India Holding (BWH) was incorporated on 26.06.2010 to manufacture subcritical boilers and supercritical boilers. The case was subject to scrutiny assessment and in order to determine the arm's length price in relation to international transactions entered into by the assessee with the associate enterprises

Nicky Marmo Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 18(3), New Delhi

The Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2303/DEL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Nicky Marmo Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Unit No. 203, Second Ward-18(3), Floor, Pearls Best New Delhi Height,1 Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn3607P Appellant Respondent

Section 68

case as mentioned in the order of the CIT(A) are that, the appellant is a company. The case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment scheme 2019 to verify the source of large share premium received by the appellant company during the year. A total

ACIT, Circle 25(1), Delhi vs. Vinod Rice Meal Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2048/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 68

with Vinod Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. during the A.Y. 2012-13. However, no shares were allotted to Livin Infrastructure. Scrutiny assessment of A.Y. 2013-14 was also completed in this charge and during the scrutiny proceedings it was accepted by the department that assessee company has made sale of Rs.7 ... assessee during F.Y. 2011-12 was not disputed by the Assessing Officer. 12. In the remand report, the Assessing Officer has further submitted that scrutiny assessment of A.Y. 2013-14 was also completed in that charge and during the scrutiny proceedings it was accepted by the department that assessee company

DCIT, Central Circle- II, Noida vs. Newtramax Healthcare, Kurukshetra

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7159/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 80I

Hence, the addition made by Assessing Officer is against the established law of jurisprudence of natural justice. iv) In the regular scrutiny assessment made u/s 143(3) of the Act for * A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 and A.Y. 2014-15 the claim of the deduction ... claim of deduction under Section 80IC was examined and allowed in the scrutiny assessment made under Section 143(3) of the Act. However, for the A.Y. 2015-16 in question, the AO disallowed claim of deduction by incorrectly alleging that details / explanations were not filed by the assessee. Such observations

Dr. Ashok Seth, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5144/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2011-12 Dr. Ashok Seth, Acit, Circle 61(1), B-30, Geetanjali Enclave, Vs. New Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aarps1432R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

further submitted that the materials facts are identical as the finding of the AO vide para no. 5.3 to 5.7 of the impugned scrutiny assessment order dated 29.3.2014 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act for subject assessment year in support of the impugned disallowance is cut-copy ... previous findings made vide para 3.3 to 3.7 of the impugned scrutiny assessment order dated 31.1.2023 passed u/s. 143(3) for immediately preceding AY 2010-11, which has been found to be legally unsustainable vide common order (supra), making the impugned disallowance also contrary to the binding ratio

The ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad vs. Shri. Sureshchandra Shantilal Brahmbhatt, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1549/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Shri. Sureshchandra Shantilal Ward-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad, Brahmbhatt, Room No. 220, V. 4 Shreenath Bangalow Part-2 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Matrushree Party Plot, Near Sachin Tower, Vejalpur, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad-380005 Ahmedabad-380051, Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Actpb8904H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Tushar Hemani, Sr. Ar & Sh. Parimalsinh Parmar, Ar Revenue By: Sh. Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.04.2024

For Appellant: Sh. Tushar Hemani, Sr. AR & Sh. ParimalsinhFor Respondent: Sh. Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Return of income was processed by Revenue under section 143(1). The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny assessment , and statutory notice(s) were issued by the AO under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the 1961 Act to the assessee, from time

ACIT, Salem vs. Ans Jewelry, Salem

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1151/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri N.Arjunraj (Advocate)- Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 68

assessee is a partnership firm and stated to be engaged in jewellery business. The assessee offered income of Rs.96.55 Lacs which was subjected to scrutiny assessment to verify the source of cash deposited by it during demonetized period. During the course of assessment proceedings, certain details were called

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai vs. Technotrade Impex India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3007/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 40

refer page 68-71 of the compilation), the assessee has claimed deduction for interest income of Rs 1,53,05,994/-. There was no scrutiny assessment for this year. 2.10 In the current Assessment Year 2016-17, the assessee has credited its Profit and Loss account by interest received from ... well, It has also pointed out that the appellant's claim has been accepted in both A.Y. 2013- 14 &A.Y. 2014-15 after scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3). Further, in A.Y. 20202021, the appellant reversed the entire interest provision of Rs.5,92,73,161/- by debiting its Profit & Loss Account

A N Traders P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 839/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Chadha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

that the assessee filed its Return of Income electronically on 29.10.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 1,39,21,470/-. Return was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS and accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. 4. The assessee is engaged in running restaurant business. While scrutinizing

DCIT, Circle- 3(2), New Delhi vs. Atnt Infrasturcture Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6220/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 69

case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2013 declaring loss of Rs. 2,20,09,147/-. Return was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. 4. Returned loss of the assessee was assessed at an income

The ACIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar vs. The Sardar Patel Co Opertaive Credit Society Limited, Vijapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is

ITA 526/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Hasmukh V Doshi & Sh. Mehal H DoshiFor Respondent: Sh. Vipul Chavda, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

processed by Revenue under section 143(1) of the 1961 Act, and thereafter the case of the assessee was selected for framing limited scrutiny assessment through CASS. The notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) were issued to the assesse by Revenue. The assessee filed submissions from time ... operative Credit Society engaged in providing credit facility to its members. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing limited scrutiny assessment under CASS. 7.2 The assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the 1961 Act to the tune of Rs. 32,449/- being

The ACIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar vs. The Sardar Patel Co Opertaive Credit Society Limited, Vijapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is

ITA 525/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Hasmukh V Doshi & Sh. Mehal H DoshiFor Respondent: Sh. Vipul Chavda, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

processed by Revenue under section 143(1) of the 1961 Act, and thereafter the case of the assessee was selected for framing limited scrutiny assessment through CASS. The notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) were issued to the assesse by Revenue. The assessee filed submissions from time ... operative Credit Society engaged in providing credit facility to its members. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing limited scrutiny assessment under CASS. 7.2 The assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the 1961 Act to the tune of Rs. 32,449/- being

M/S. Rsd Natural Resources Pvt. Ltd., 2015-16 vs. DCIT, Cir-9(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 794/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 794/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 M/S. Rsd Natural Resources Private Ltd.,.….Appellant C/O. M/S. Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, C.R. Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700072 [Pan:Aagcr3203B] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…….Respondent Circle-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, Room No. 5/25, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri S. Jhajharia, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 20, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: April 2Nd, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

assessee has filed its return of income on 29.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.42,66,457/- . The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment 6 RSD Natural resources Pvt. Ltd. and a notice under section 143(2) was issued on 08.04.2016. The ld. Assessing Officer has passed