“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

Avinash Narayan Sutar, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 28(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the three appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1029/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 1029, 1030 & 1031/Mum/2020 (A.Ys: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2010-11) Avinash Narayan Sutar Vs. Ito – 28(1)(2) Plot No. 582, Laxmi Tower No.6, Vashi Niwas, Sector -1, Station, Navi Mumbai- Shiravana, Nerul, Navi 400703. Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent Ito – 28(1)(2) Vs. Avinash Narayan Sutar Tower No.6, Vashi Plot No. 582, Laxmi Station, Navi Mumbai- Niwas, Sector -1, 400703. Shiravana, Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Tulsiyan.ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha.DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

whereas the CIT(A) considered ITA No. 1029, 1030, 1031& 1321/Mum/2020 M/s. Avinash Narayan Sutar, Mumbai. the grounds of appeal, findings of the scrutiny assessment and submissions of the assessee in the course of hearing proceedings. Further the assessee has filed the additional evidences in the appellate proceedings ... respect to additions made u/s 69C and 40A(3) of the Act, the CIT(A) has considered the MOU and the findings of the scrutiny assessment. The assessee has filed the written submissions on 19.01.2016 dealt at page 4 Para 5 of the order as under: During appellate proceedings

Smt. Sabapathy Kalaiselvi, Coimbatore vs. PCIT-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 619/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the assessment order framed and it is limited scrutiny assessment just to verify large business loss set off against other heads of income including capital gains. The ld.counsel for the assessee drew our attention ... account of money lending activities. 7. After hearing rival contentions and going through the facts of the case, we noted that this being limited scrutiny assessment framed by the AO for the purpose of verification of large business loss incurred in the money lending. We noted that

Cavinkare Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1603/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1603/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Cavinkare Private Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 12, Cavin Ville, Income Tax, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet Company Circle-I(3) Chennai-600 018. Chennai-600 034. Pan:Aaacb 3754B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R.Mohan Reddy, CITFor Respondent: 24.11.2022

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 35Section 36(1)(ii)

appellant for the Financial Year 2010-11.” The learned counsel stated that in view of the above documents submitted by the assessee during the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer after making enquiries allowed claim of deduction claimed u/s.35(2AB) of 10 the Act. Hence, according to him, assessment order ... Science & Technology to the Income-tax department u/s.35(2AB) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has gone into these details, documents filed during scrutiny assessment proceedings and after examining the same allowed claim of deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act. In 22 view of the above and in accordance with

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(1), Mumbai vs. Rashi Commercial Company, Mumsai

In the result, both these appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1960/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Riddhi MishraFor Respondent: Neelkanth Khandelwal

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 37(1)Section 69C

assessee was also engaged in booking non genuine losses due to reversal trades in assessment year 2014-15. On query the assessee submitted that scrutiny assessment order for the assessment year 2014-15 was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2016 and assessee has ITA Nos. 1959 &1960/Mum/2022

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(1), Mumbai vs. Rashi Fincorp Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both these appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1959/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Riddhi MishraFor Respondent: Neelkanth Khandelwal

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 37(1)Section 69C

M/S. Croda India Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Pr. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai-6

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1439/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35Section 43(6)

this regard warranting any revision u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT. 5.3. It was also submitted that during the scrutiny assessments of AY 2012-13 and 2014-15, the assessee had specifically submitted details in respect of Goodwill purchased and depreciation claimed thereon. The then ... Moreover, we also find that the ld.AO had made adequate enquiries with regard to the issue of depreciation on Goodwill during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings for the AY 2017-18 (i.e the year under consideration before us) which is evident from the following facts :- a) Notice issued

Babita Devi Kanoria, Raniganj vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(1), Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 54/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Babita Devi Kajoria,..............................Appellant W/O. Unesh Kr. Kajoria, Jagannath Garden, Nsb Road, P.O. Raniganj-713347, Burdwan, West Bengal [Pan: Anfpk0759G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,..............................Respondent Ward-3(1), Asansol, Income Tax Department, Parmar Building, 54, G.T. Road, Upper Chelidanga, P.O. Asansol-713305, Paschim Burdwan (Wb) Appearances By: Shri Aayush Gupta, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 15, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2022 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz):- The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol Dated 18.11.2019 Passed For A.Y. 2010-11. 1 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Babita Devi Kajoria, Raniganj 2. The Assessee Has Taken Three Grounds Of Appeal, But Her Grievances Revolve Around A Single Issue, Namely Ld. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.3,09,766/-, Which Was Imposed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C).

Section 133(6)Section 14Section 144Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

return of income on 31.12.2010 declaring total income at Rs.1,78,550/-. It is not discernable from the impugned assessment order, whether any scrutiny assessment had earlier taken place or not but 148 notice issued on 29.03.2017, which according to the ld. Assessing Officer was served upon the assessee. Thereafter

Shyamm Mariwala, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward -6(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2494/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shyamm Mariwala, Ito Ward-6(3)(3), 216, Vasan Udyog Bhavan, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400013. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Advpm 4940 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Subhash Chhajed, Ar : Revenue By Mr. R.N. D’Souza, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/12/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Subhash Chhajed, AR

Section 14ASection 68

remained same at Rs. NIL. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected f income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment or scrutiny assessment Shyamm Mariwala. 4 and statutory notices under the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, and statutory notices under the Income

Visa Sales Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.O. Ward 1(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 526/KOL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.526/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Visa Sales Pvt. Ltd........….……………………....................……….……Appellant 12, Waterloo Street, Kolkata-700069. [Pan: Aadcv1161H] Vs. A.O, Ward-1(3), Kolkata……..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Narayan Gupta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 09, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 21, 2022 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-19, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06.03.2018 Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 29.03.2014 Passed By Ito, Ward-1(3), Kolkata. 2. The Registry Has Informed That This Appeal Is Time Barred By 968 Days. On Going Through The Condonation Application In The Form Of Affidavit & After Hearing Both The Parties, We Find That This Delay Is Accountable For Two Reasons. Firstly, The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) Is Dated 06.03.2018 & The Assessee Has Not Received The Order On Time. Secondly, The Period Of Delay Occurred On Account Of Lockdown In The State Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19. In View Of The Reasons Stated In The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay & Also The Extension Of Limitation Period By Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 Of 2020 Dated 10.01.2022 By Which The Period From 15.03.2020 To 28.02.2022 Has Been Directed To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Limitation & A Further Period Of 90 Days Has Been Granted For Providing The Limitation From 01.03.2022, We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing This Appeal & Admit The Same For Adjudication.

Section 143(3)Section 68

rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We observe that the assessee which is a private limited company was subjected to scrutiny assessment and during the course of assessment proceedings, it had failed to satisfy the A.O about the source of share capital and share premium

Balaraj Guttamidi, Manikonda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 262/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Balaraj Guttamidi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 8(1), R/O. Rangareddy. Hyderabad. Pan : Btlpg4930J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar. Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya. Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 54Section 54F

while filing the appeal, assessee had inadvertently omitted to raise a ground against the action of the Assessing Officer in expanding the scope of scrutiny assessment and that the said ground being a legal ground, all the facts relating to the issue are borne out of the order of assessment ... additional grounds stating that the same are legal grounds which are raised against the action of Assessing Officer in expanding the scope of scrutiny assessment. On perusal of the order of Assessing Officer, we found that Assessing Officer had restricted the case to limited scrutiny under CASS for verification

Samy Construction, Erode vs. The PCIT-2, Coimbatore

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

ITA 419/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

address or contact number is mentioned. In view of these defects, the AO while completing assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act in limited scrutiny assessment disallowed labour expenses to the extent of Rs.15 lakhs and added to the total income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment accordingly ... through the size of requirements of manpower for civil work, the AO has not verified the TDS angle at the time of completion of scrutiny assessment. Therefore, he set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to redo the assessment after verification of TDS angle on labour payments

Duckwoo Autoind Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvallur vs. PCIT-1, Chennai

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

ITA 232/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.232/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Respondent: Mr.S.Maruthu Pandian, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(b)

that whether the PCIT can revise the assessment framed by the AO u/s.143(3) of the Act, when the assessment itself was a limited scrutiny assessment and the issue on which limited scrutiny assessment framed was not before the PCIT or the PCIT can deliberate on any other issue other ... that the assessee company filed its return of income for the AY 2015-16 on 30.11.2015. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS for limited scrutiny assessment by issuance of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. This is an admitted :: 3 :: fact and recorded

P. Ananthram, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Combatore Main Building, 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.155/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 P. Ananth Ram, The Asst. Commissioner Of 36, West Venkataswamy Road, Vs. Income Tax, R.S. Puram, Non Corporate Circle-2, Coimbtore – 641 002. Coimbatore. [Pan: Anxpa-6262-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

assessee is an individual and assessment was completed by the A.O u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 07.11.2018 in a limited scrutiny assessment. Subsequently, the PCIT issued show cause notice u/s. 263 of the Act by observing that the assessment framed by the A.O is erroneous insofar

ITO, Ward 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Kumudini Engineering Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2585/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleito, Ward 2(1), Thane Vs. M/S Kumudini Room No. 25, B-Wing Engineering Pvt Ltd 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park 601/602 D Wing Wagle Industrial Estt Shreepati Road, Thane(W)-400604 Poonam Sagar Maharashtra Complex, Mira Road (E), Thane – 401107 Maharashtra "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabco1260G Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah.Ar Revenue By : Shritejinder Pal Singh Anand.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) – Delhi / Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah.ARFor Respondent: ShriTejinder Pal Singh Anand.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

appeal before the CIT(A).Whereas the CIT(A) considered the grounds of appeal, submissions of the assessee and the findings of the scrutiny assessment Kumudini Engineering Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. and facts with respect to exempted income earned and expenditure incurred for earning certain exempt income. The CIT(A) after

Pine Tree Consultants P.Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle - 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1695/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No.1696/Mum/2020 (A.Y: 2013-14) Pine Tree Consultants Vs. Dcit, Circle – 3(2)(2) Pvt Ltd, No.104, Raheja Aayakar Bhavan, Centre, 1St Floor, Mk Road, Free Press Journal Mumbai -400020. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai -400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcp8816F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Neelkanth Khandelwal.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Deepika Arora.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Cit(A))-8 Mumbai Passed Under Sec250 Of The Act

For Appellant: Mr.Neelkanth Khandelwal.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Deepika Arora.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has considered grounds of appeal, findings of scrutiny assessment. The assessee has filed the submissions on the disputed issue of validity of reassessment proceedings and unsecured loans referred at page 7 Para

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Karburi Properties Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 461/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 461, 462 & 463/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Dcit, Cc-5(1) Vs. M/S Karburi Properties Room No. 1928, 19Th Ltd., Floor, Air India Bldg 324, Master Mind – Iv Nariman Point, Royal Palms, Aarey Milk Mumbai – 400 021. Colony, Goregoan East, Mumbai - 400065

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Madhumalti Ghosh. DR &

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, findings of the scrutiny assessment and the submissions of the assessee and observed that the grounds of appeal raised by the assesee on the validity of reassessment proceedings, does not have

Mumtaz Karim Samnani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-17(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2650/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemumtaz Karim Samnani Vs. Ito – 17(2)(4) 492, Helios 2, Clover Room No. 112, Acropolis Society, Opp Kautilya Bhavan, G Sambhar Hotel, Viman Block, Bkc, Bandra Nagar, Pune – 411014 (E), Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No Amops6908D Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Rakesh Milwani.Ar Revenue By : Ms.Richa Gulati.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr.Rakesh Milwani.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Richa Gulati.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

appeal with the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, submissions of the assessee and findings of the scrutiny assessment but has confirmed the action of the AO and dismissed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed

Shashikala Gupta, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 222/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Shashikala Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 10(1) Pan:Aaspg1838N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Darshan Jakharia, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.3.2022 Of The Learned Pr.Cit-1, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Her Return Of Income On 26.07.2017 For A.Y 2017-18 Admitting Income From House Property & Other Sources At Rs.3,66,720/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Issues On Which The Selection Was Made Was “Large Value Cash Deposited During Demonetization Period As Compared To Returned Income”. Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Dated 9.8.2018 Was Issued & Served Electronically On The Assessee As Well As Page 1 Of 15

For Appellant: Shri Darshan Jakharia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Shashikala Gupta of such cash deposits made during the demonetization period. He submitted that the case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment solely for the reason of cash deposits during the demonetization period and the assessee has explained the source of such cash deposits before the Assessing Officer

DCIT CC, -7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Glamour Health Care Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenueis dismissed

ITA 2252/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyaldy.Cit, Cc-7(2), Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S Glamour Health Care Pvt. Ltd. 4 Kiran Villa, 34, Ram Mandir Road, Danda, Khar (West), Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaacn2617F ..... Respondent Appellant/Revenue By : Sh. Rakesh Garg, Cit-Dr Respondent/Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ar Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai [For Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’] Vide Order Dated 24.08.2021 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Garg, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

conducted in the case of Thakkar and Ashar Group on 05-07-2017. At the time of search no scrutiny assessment was made in the case of assessee and there was no time left to issue notice u/s 143(2). In view of this this case falls in the category

Ecospace Suppliers Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 9(2), Kolkata

ITA 583/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 15/01/2013 declaring total income as “NIL”. Its case was selected for scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the Assessing Officer