“scrutiny assessment”

Shivom Vidyapeeth Shikshan Samiti, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemetion 2, Raipur

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 262 & 263/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shivom Vidyapeeth Shikshan Samiti 214, Shivom Vihar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 013 Pan : Aahts6464M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption-2, Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

return of income for A.Y.2015-16 on 07.12.2015, declaring an income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently the case of the assessee society was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s.143(2) of the Act. 4. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee had claimed deduction

Shivom Vidyapeeth Shikshan Samiti, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemetion 2, Raipur

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 262 & 263/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shivom Vidyapeeth Shikshan Samiti 214, Shivom Vihar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 013 Pan : Aahts6464M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption-2, Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

return of income for A.Y.2015-16 on 07.12.2015, declaring an income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently the case of the assessee society was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s.143(2) of the Act. 4. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee had claimed deduction

Sai Petroleum, Surat vs. Pr.CIT, -1, Surat

In the result, grounds no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.116/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) Sai Petroleum Principal Commissioner Of 381, Survey No.415, Sachin, Income-Tax-1, Rom 123, Vs Surat-394230 Aayakhar Bhawan, Majura Pan No: Achfs 8318 Q Gate, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Ketan S. Jagirdar, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 16.03.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 17.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 15.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Surat / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Ads Made By Ld. Ao As Per Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act. Sai Petroleum I. Addition U/S 68 R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act Amounting To Rs.13,65,241 As Unreconciled Cash Deposited In Bank Accounted As Cash Sales During Demonetization Period. Ii. Addition U/S 68 Of The Act Amounting To Rs.10,00,000 Received From Debtors As Unaccounted Cash Deposited In Bank During Demonetization Period.

there was survey under section 133A on 21.03.2017 in assessees premises, therefore, the return of assessee was selected for scrutiny. During scrutiny assessment, assessee filed its reply from time-to- time. The assessing officer also issued show cause notice about cash-in-hand and reconciliation about shortage of cash

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam vs. Nallamilli Sridevi, Tirupati

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

case. v) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO is not justified in law in expanding the limited scrutiny assessment beyond its scope, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The respondent / cross objector craves to add, alter, delete, substitute or modify ... before the Ld. AO. The Ld. AR accepted that the assessee participated in the assessment proceedings. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the scrutiny assessment order passed U/s. 143(3) of the Act is invalid in law and shall be quashed. The Ld. AR relied on the decision

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam vs. Nallamilli Sridevi, Tirupati

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

case. v) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO is not justified in law in expanding the limited scrutiny assessment beyond its scope, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The respondent / cross objector craves to add, alter, delete, substitute or modify ... before the Ld. AO. The Ld. AR accepted that the assessee participated in the assessment proceedings. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the scrutiny assessment order passed U/s. 143(3) of the Act is invalid in law and shall be quashed. The Ld. AR relied on the decision

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam vs. Vittalam Nataraj Prasad, Tirupati

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

case. v) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO is not justified in law in expanding the limited scrutiny assessment beyond its scope, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The respondent / cross objector craves to add, alter, delete, substitute or modify ... before the Ld. AO. The Ld. AR accepted that the assessee participated in the assessment proceedings. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the scrutiny assessment order passed U/s. 143(3) of the Act is invalid in law and shall be quashed. The Ld. AR relied on the decision

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation), Visakhapatnam vs. Vittalam Nataraj Prasad, Tirupati

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

case. v) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO is not justified in law in expanding the limited scrutiny assessment beyond its scope, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The respondent / cross objector craves to add, alter, delete, substitute or modify ... before the Ld. AO. The Ld. AR accepted that the assessee participated in the assessment proceedings. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the scrutiny assessment order passed U/s. 143(3) of the Act is invalid in law and shall be quashed. The Ld. AR relied on the decision

Om Prakash Verma, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer, Jagdalpur

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 87/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Om Prakash Verma H. No.53, Star Homes Campus, Bawadiya Kalan, Bhopal (M.P)-462 039 Pan : Aaipv9836F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Jagdalpur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

return of income for A.Y.2010-11 on 21.06.2010, declaring an income of Rs.4,96,250/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s.143(2) of the Act. 3 Om Prakash Verma Vs. ITO, Jagdalpur 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed ... this reason of cash deposit of Rs.14,00,000 in the saving bank account only, the case of the assessee was taken/ selected for scrutiny assessment and the same was also recorded in the AIR information. This fact can also be verified from the next page of the bank statement

ACIT Central-2, Indore vs. Shri Vinod Bansal, Khandwa

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniit(Ss)A No.213/Ind/2021 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vs. Acit, Central-2, Vinod Bansal, Indore Khandwa "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aiepb3961B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri P. K. Mishra, Cit.D.R. Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Assessee By : 19.12.2022 Date Of Hearing 14.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.08.2021 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Bhopal (M.P.) (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Order Dated 28.12.2019 Passed By The Dcit (Central)-2, Indore (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘A.Y.’) 2018-19 With The Following Ground:

Vinod Industries in which the appellant represent as a partner engaged in the Manufacturing and trading of oil. During the course of scrutiny assessment as well as appellate proceeding it was clarified that some of the customer of M/s M G Oils sent cash directly to the appellant

DCIT, Circle-1, Patna vs. Dina Mahabir Re-Rollers Private Limited, Patna

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

assessment was reopened by issuance of a notice under section 148 on 23.08.2010. In A.Y. 2009-10, case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued on 22.09.2010. The ld. Assessing Officer has passed the assessments under section 143(3) read

DCIT, Circle-1, Patna vs. Dina Mahabir Re-Rollers Pvt Ltd, Patna

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

assessment was reopened by issuance of a notice under section 148 on 23.08.2010. In A.Y. 2009-10, case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued on 22.09.2010. The ld. Assessing Officer has passed the assessments under section 143(3) read

Ranjan Aggarwal, Amritsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-II, Amritsar

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

survey was carried out in November, 2016 - It was also noted that entire opening stock, sales and closing stock of assessee was accepted during scrutiny assessment of previous year - Based on such findings, Tribunal deleted additions made - Whether where quantum figure and opening stock was accepted in previous years during ... scrutiny assessments, receipt from sales made by assessee proprietary concern out of its opening stock could not be treated as unexplained income to be taxed as 'income from other sources'” The assessee already declared the cash as turnover &paid the tax accordingly. The stock and purchase was never be disputed

Kalpana Jain, Indore vs. The Pr CIT-1, Indore

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

When the issue in question has already been enquired into and examined thoroughly by the Ld. AO in the scrutiny assessment, holding the said order erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue due to lack of proper enquiry and investigation invoking the provision

Hassanand Khemlani, Indore vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

When the issue in question has already been enquired into and examined thoroughly by the Ld. AO in the scrutiny assessment, holding the said order erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue due to lack of proper enquiry and investigation invoking the provision