← 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

M/S. Bhagabati Buil & Construction Pvt. Ltd, Cuttack vs. Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 114/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. M/S. Bhagabati Bhagabati Build Build & & Vs. Pr. Cit, Constructions Pvt Ltd., At: Constructions Pvt Ltd., At: Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Madhupatna, Po: Link Road, Madhupatna, Po: Link Road, Ps:Madhupatna, Cuttack Ps:Madhupatna, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaecb 1801 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ar Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/0 /02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr. Cit, Cit, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Dated 27.11.2019 27.11.2019 In Appeal No.Itba/Ast/S/144/2019 Itba/Ast/S/144/2019-20/1021143134(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year2017- 18. 2. Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam ,Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam ,Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 144Section 263

that in regard to the issue of real estate business, which had shown high closing balance and the same was the reason for the scrutiny assessment in the case of the assessee but the AO had not raised question on the same. It was the submission that

Sumit Juneja, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 62(5), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5802/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271ESection 40A(3)Section 44A

year under consideration was filed on 28.11.2014 electronically declaring income of Rs. 15,46,770/-. The case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was framed on 30.11.2016. The Assessing Officer while framing the assessment made disallowance

Nazima Zahirabbas, Daman-396210 vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhidham-Kutch

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/RJT/2022[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Mrs. Madhumita Royिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Nazima Zahir Abbas, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ground Floor, Naval Complex, Ward-2, Khaji Street, Khatkiwad, Gandhidham Daman-396210 Pan : Aafpz 1308 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) ""यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2023 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 25.07.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Raised Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs.8,22,442/- On Account Of Cash Deposit In Bank Account. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming Addition Of Cash Deposit In Joint Bank Account, Which Was Admittedly Disclosed In Her Husband Books. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That The Above Addition/Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer May Please Be Deleted.”

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

report admitted that the impugned bank account was reflected in the balance-sheet of the husband of the assessee who had been subjected to scrutiny assessment for the impugned year under Section 143(3) of the Act and an addition of only Rs.28,091/- had been made in his case

Shri Tejas Mahendra Sanghavi, Jamnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3 (1), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 193/RJT/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year :2016-17 Tejas Mahendra Sanghavi Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1) 1-Zaveri Zapo, Jamnagar. Chandi Bazar Jamnagar. Pan : Bgtps 0538 R

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura,ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D.Gupta, Ld.Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 250(6)Section 68

bank account of the assessee remained unexplained. The contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee before us was that the case was limited scrutiny assessment case and examination of cash deposits was not the scope of limited scrutiny; that no addition was made on account of the issues for which ... have considered the contentions of both the parties. It is an admitted fact that the assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment for the reason of largevalue of shares/units in STT, which is settled otherwise than the actual delivery or transfer and the investment income relating

M/S. C. J. Group & Gajras Builders & Developers, Panvel, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Bharuch

In the result, this ground of appeal is also dismissed

ITA 2/SRT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.02/Srt/2021 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) M/S C.J. Group & Gajras Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Builders & Developers, Vs Bharuch Bhoomi Land Mark, Plot No. 30-30A, Sector-17, Khan Colony, Panvel-410206, Maharashtra Pan No. Aagfc 4658 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

assessee while filing its return of income has declared income at Rs.16,50,001/- for assessment year 2011-12. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that in the profit and loss account, the assessee has debited a sum of Rs.34

Ladakh Roadlines, Srinagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Srinagar

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

ITA 101/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250Section 282

firm: 6. However, it is also noted that the appellant's cases in the past have been subjected to a general disallowance in the scrutiny assessment proceedings. The GP ratio of the appellant firm has also been reported at a lesser figure than in the previous assessment years

Measeg. Ladakh Roadlines, Srinagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Srinagar

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

ITA 295/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250Section 282

firm: 6. However, it is also noted that the appellant's cases in the past have been subjected to a general disallowance in the scrutiny assessment proceedings. The GP ratio of the appellant firm has also been reported at a lesser figure than in the previous assessment years

Shri Prashantsinh Ajitsinh Chauhan, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 123/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Doshi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld. CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

expanded in proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act. In support of its contention, the assessee relied on various judicial precedents that scope of limited scrutiny assessment cannot be expanded/enhanced during the course of 263 proceedings by the PCIT. However, the PCIT rejected both the contentions of the assessee ... disallowance u/s. 40(a) of the Act for such default. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the scope of limited scrutiny assessment cannot be expanded by the PCIT in 263 proceedings as held by the various judicial precedent on this issue. Regarding the contention of the PCIT that looking

Bijender Lather, Sonipat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sonipat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1735/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Bijender Lather, Vs Ito, 5/6, Railway Colony, Gohana, Ward-I, Haryana-131301. Sonipat. Pan-Bcipb3318M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Akshat Sharma, Adv. Respondent By Shri Sanjay Nargas, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23.02.2023

Section 142(1)Section 144

Rs.12,64,500/-. It was seen that the amount was deposited in old currency notes. The case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment was framed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) vide order dated 25.12.2019. Thereby, the AO made addition

Sumangal Techpark (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 24(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 3840/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2010-11 Sumangal Techpark (P) Ltd., Vs. Ito, 117, Hans Bhawan, Ward-24(3), 1 Bsz Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aalcs4760R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Ms Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2023 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2019 Of The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. First Of All, We Have Heard The Arguments Of Both The Representatives On Legal Ground No.1 Of The Assessee Which Reads As Under:- “3. The Initiation Of The Proceedings U/S 148 & The Consequent Order Us 147 Are Bad In Law As A) The Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 148 Are Contrary To Provisions Of Law B) The Mandatory Procedure Laid Down In The Act Has Not Been Followed. C) The Notice Issued U/S 148 Is Time Barred As Issued After 4 Years From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year Where The Case Has Already Been Assessed U/S 143(3). D) The Approval Of Addl. Cit & Pcit Is Bad In Law & Mechanical Without Application Of Mind & Has Been Taken Without Bringing To Their Notice Material Facts Of The Case. E) The Information Has Been Collected Behind The Back Of The Assessee & The Assessee Was Never Confronted With The Same Nor An Opportunity Provided For Cross-Examination Of Jain Brothers, Alleged Intermediary & The Relevant Seized Material Relied Upon Has Not Been Provided To The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292B

paper book page 181 submitted that the original assessment proceedings for AY 2010-11 were completed u/s 143(3) of the Act by passing scrutiny assessment order on 30.11.2012. Subsequently, reassessment proceedings were initiated for present AY 2010-11 on 26.03.2017, i.e., after expiry of four years from ... controverted some undisputable facts that the original assessment proceedings were completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and scrutiny assessment order was passed on 30.11.2012 for AY 2011-12. It is also not in dispute that the AO initiated reassessment proceedings u/s 147 by issuing notice by recording reasons

Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 3(4), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA No.1108/Del/2016 is partly allowed and ITA

ITA 2824/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 282Section 292BSection 80C

subject Assessment Year at PB 09). Each return has been filed with the same address as above. For AY 2009-10 there was a scrutiny assessment which too was finalized through notices served at the above address. The appeal filed by the assessee was also finalised through notices served ... address at which the returns of the income for several past years were filed and indeed in one of those years even a scrutiny assessment was done. The Ld. CIT(Al's order for AY 2009-10 was also at the same address as given in the returns, both past

Shri Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, ITA No.1108/Del/2016 is partly allowed and ITA

ITA 1108/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 282Section 292BSection 80C

subject Assessment Year at PB 09). Each return has been filed with the same address as above. For AY 2009-10 there was a scrutiny assessment which too was finalized through notices served at the above address. The appeal filed by the assessee was also finalised through notices served ... address at which the returns of the income for several past years were filed and indeed in one of those years even a scrutiny assessment was done. The Ld. CIT(Al's order for AY 2009-10 was also at the same address as given in the returns, both past

Smiths Detection Asia Pacific Pte Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 2258/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: ShriHimanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

Offshore supply of Airport Ltd. (CIAL) equipment 5. 62,94,461/- Interest on Fixed Canara Bank Deposits (FDs) 6. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the assessee itself submitted that it has a Permanent Establishment [PE] in existence in India with respect to contract with CIAL and accordingly

Mesers D M Builders, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Raipur

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

ITA 220/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K Meena, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Builders Vs. ACIT-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.220/RPR/2018 declaring an income of Rs.69,310/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s.143(2) of the Act. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee firm

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat vs. Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 588/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.569/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), 207, 2Nd Floor, 6/2060/61 Vedant Surat. Building Bojabhai Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aovpp8989A (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.588/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2008-09) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), Vs. Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, 207, 2Nd Floor, 6/2060/61 Vedant Surat. Building Bojabhai Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aovpp8989A (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Vijayvargia, Ca Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 03/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

basis of information of investigation wing that they have searched a person who is engaged in providing accommodation entries, held that where after scrutiny assessment the assessing officer received information from the investigation wing that well known entry operators of the country provided bogus entries to various beneficiaries, and assessee

Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 569/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.569/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), 207, 2Nd Floor, 6/2060/61 Vedant Surat. Building Bojabhai Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aovpp8989A (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.588/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2008-09) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), Vs. Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, 207, 2Nd Floor, 6/2060/61 Vedant Surat. Building Bojabhai Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aovpp8989A (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Vijayvargia, Ca Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 03/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

basis of information of investigation wing that they have searched a person who is engaged in providing accommodation entries, held that where after scrutiny assessment the assessing officer received information from the investigation wing that well known entry operators of the country provided bogus entries to various beneficiaries, and assessee

ACIT, Circle 1(2), Surat vs. Nya International, Surat

In the result, ground nos

ITA 534/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.713/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Nya International, Surat. Unit No. 360, Plot No. 239, Sez, Gidc, Sachin, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfn1681M (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.534/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2014-15) The Acit, Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Nya International, Surat. Unit No. 360, Plot No. 239, Sez, Gidc, Sachin, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfn1681M (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Assessee By Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2023

Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 68

next year also i.e. in A.Y. 2014-15 where book results of the assessee was accepted by the assessing officer in the scrutiny assessment proceedings. In the relevant financial year i.e. F.Y. 2013-14 relevant to A.Y. 2014-15, the assessee had shown turnover

Shri Sunny Chadrakant Fudhanawala, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner Income Tax Officer, Cir3(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.271/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Sunny Chandrakant Deputy Commissioner Of Fudhnawala, 47, Matawadi, Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Vs. Nr. Bhavani Mata Mandir, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate Lambe Hanuman Road, Nr. New Civil Hospital Road, Surat-395006 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahpf 6359 G (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Manish J Shah, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

income showing computation of total income and also shown capital gains in respect of her share, which was accepted by the Department without passing scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. That is, after filing the return of income, the Department did not raise the question about allowability ... same property. Hence assessee should not be treated in different way by the Department. Since co-owner’s case although, not selected for scrutiny assessment and there is no scrutiny assessment in case of co-owner, however yet the Department has accepted the return of income. In the asssessee

ACIT, Circle 1(2), Surat vs. M/S Nya International, Surat

In the result, ground nos

ITA 713/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.713/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Nya International, Surat. Unit No. 360, Plot No. 239, Sez, Gidc, Sachin, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfn1681M (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.534/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2014-15) The Acit, Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Nya International, Surat. Unit No. 360, Plot No. 239, Sez, Gidc, Sachin, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfn1681M (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Assessee By Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2023

Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 68

next year also i.e. in A.Y. 2014-15 where book results of the assessee was accepted by the assessing officer in the scrutiny assessment proceedings. In the relevant financial year i.e. F.Y. 2013-14 relevant to A.Y. 2014-15, the assessee had shown turnover

Shri Rajendrakumar Kantilal Patel, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 354/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50

relating to issue no. 1: The assessee has filed his return of income for AY.2013-14 on 30.07.2013 showing total income at Rs.23,43,910/-. Scrutiny assessment in the case for AY.2013-14 was finalized vide order u/s 143(3) of the LT. Act dated 28/03/2016 at an income of Rs.23 ... noticed by Ld. PCIT from the details in the computation of income submitted by the assessee during the scrutiny assessment proceedings that, a plot of land situated at 129 Palanpore, district Surat, in which he had 10% share, was sold during the year