← 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. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Officer, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

ITA 23/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

disallowance of depreciation in a proceedings under section 153A of the Act is further bad in law as for some of the assessment years scrutiny assessments have been completed under section 143(3) of the Act and hence the question of disallowance of depreciation invoking without any incriminating materials

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 22/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

disallowance of depreciation in a proceedings under section 153A of the Act is further bad in law as for some of the assessment years scrutiny assessments have been completed under section 143(3) of the Act and hence the question of disallowance of depreciation invoking without any incriminating materials

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 21/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

disallowance of depreciation in a proceedings under section 153A of the Act is further bad in law as for some of the assessment years scrutiny assessments have been completed under section 143(3) of the Act and hence the question of disallowance of depreciation invoking without any incriminating materials

Maina Devi Patni, Jaipur vs. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee, is allowed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 4942/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrymaina Devi Patni, Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Mumbai. 6/127, Malviya Nagar, Vs. Jaipur-302017 Pan: Axbpp 3832 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Chand, Ld. AR (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Adesh Rai, Ld. Sr.D.R (Virtual)
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

Assessee being as senior citizen has also raised grievance before “ The Chairman, Local Committee to deal with tax payers grievance from high pitched scrutiny assessment Room No. 402, 4th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-II, Jaipur, ” on dated 24/04/2023, however of no avail. 6. Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances

Fortrea Scientific Private Limited, Akruti Softech Park - Mumbai vs. PCIT - 3, Aayakar Bhavan - Mumbai

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

ITA 3477/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Pranay Gandhi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 3Section 37(1)Section 41Section 80G

claimed a refund of Rs. 2,41,96,210/-. 3.1. Assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment on the following issues:- i. Claim of Any other amount allowable as Deduction in Schedule BP ii. Taxability of business liability written off u/s 41 or any other section 3 I.T.A

Sbi Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 3364/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

examined by the Learned AD before finalizing the assessment; 2.2. The Learned PCIT has erred in not considering the fact that the purpose of scrutiny assessment was the claim of refund made in the Return of Income ('ROI') by the appellant and the Learned AO had duly examined ... assessee company furnished all relevant evidence and record pertaining to computation of income and financial statement, which were examined by ld. AO during scrutiny assessment and passed the assessment order after considering Rule 2 of First Schedule and section 44 of Income Tax Act. The provision of tax appears explicitly

Sbi Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Tax -1, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 3363/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

examined by the Learned AD before finalizing the assessment; 2.2. The Learned PCIT has erred in not considering the fact that the purpose of scrutiny assessment was the claim of refund made in the Return of Income ('ROI') by the appellant and the Learned AO had duly examined ... assessee company furnished all relevant evidence and record pertaining to computation of income and financial statement, which were examined by ld. AO during scrutiny assessment and passed the assessment order after considering Rule 2 of First Schedule and section 44 of Income Tax Act. The provision of tax appears explicitly

Kapoor Industries Limited, Mehrauli vs. CPC, Bengaluru(Currently Assessed With DCIT, CC-01, New Delhi)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4498/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalkapoor Industries Limited Vs Cpc, Bengluru 29A-2/1, Desu Road, Mehrauli Delhi-110030 Pan-Aaeck6613N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pavan Ved, Adv., Shri Mohit Gupta, Ca, Shri Mirza Baig, Ca & Shri Sarthak, Ca Respondent By Adjournment By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2025

Section 132Section 132BSection 143(1)Section 234Section 250

acceptance is also evident from the fact that the Ld. AO has not selected the return of income filed for AY 2024-25 for scrutiny assessment u/s 143(2) of the Act which is a matter of record. Thus, when the request of the assessee company so made vide letter

Sahara India Corp Investment Ltd, Lucknow vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above

ITA 1750/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1750/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Sahara India Corp Investment Assistant Commissioner Ltd., Of Income Tax, I-Kapoorthala Complex, Vs. Central Circle–1, Aliganj, Lucknow, Up Jhandewalan, New Delhi Pan: Aaacs1707R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Aditya Vohra, Advocate Sh. Arpit Goyal, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2017-18 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.06.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

relevant year declaring loss of (-) Rs.6,24,34,866/-. The case was picked up for limited scrutiny. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) noticed that the assessee had debited its Profit and Loss account by a loss of Rs.5,00,95,539/- arisen on sale

Tbr Infra Pvt Ltd, Alampuram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 260/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

selection of return requiring scrutiny during the F.Y. 2017-18. We therefore find merit in the argument of the Ld.AR that the scrutiny assessment proceedings raised on invalid notice and hence not sustainable and deserves to be quashed. We therefore quash the assessment order as Void-ab-initio and thus

Karuvoth Pariyayi, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Kozhikode

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

ITA 603/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Karuvoth Pariyai .......... Appellant M/S. Kannankandy Sales Corporation Indira Gandhi Road, Kozhikode [Pan: Afjpp8835J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Kozhikode ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Raghunathan, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.07.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 02.03.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 12,85,160/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ito, Ward-1(3), Kozhikode (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 18.11.2019 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) At A Total Income Of Rs. 47,10,240/-. While Doing So, The Ao Made

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee submits before us that the appellant owns agricultural land and in earlier assessment years, in the scrutiny assessment, the AO had accepted the agricultural income of Rs. 10,00,000/- and, therefore, in the absence of any change of circumstances

Smt. Pushpa Agrawal, Indore vs. ITO Ward 5(2), Indore, Aaykar Bhawan, Opposite White Church, Residency Area

Appeal is allowed

ITA 499/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

response to queries raised, submissions made and the facts and circumstances of the case” [as noted by AO in assessment-order], the AO completed scrutiny-assessment u/s 143(3) vide assessment-order dated 25.02.2015 on total income of Rs. 4,04,660/- after making a disallowance ... other dated 18.02.2013 of ‘Gram Panchayat, Limbodagari, Tehsil Indore’ for lands situated at ‘Village - Palakhedi’, which were already filed to AO during original scrutiny assessment proceedings [Refer earlier Para 2(i) of this order]. Those certificates are filed at Page 49-50 of Paper-Book and the same are also

Shri Jitendra Behl, Sriganganagar vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1080/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mrs. Raksha Birla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

filing portal for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 29.03.2018 declaring total income at Rs.2,92,300/-. The case was selected for Limited SCRUTINY assessment under CASS. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 09.08.2018 by the ld. AO. Further notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued

Rohit Prakashchandra Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 128/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 147Section 148

were basically used for providing bogus claim of long- term or short-term capital gain. The Hon’ble Court has held that since no scrutiny assessment was earlier made, the Assessing Officer had no Rohit Prakashchandra Shah vs. ITO Page 12 of 22 occasion to form any opinion and, therefore ... correct and there was no change of opinion. In the present case also, the information received by the Assessing Officer was specific and no scrutiny assessment was made in this case earlier. Therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in that case supports the case of the Revenue

Ranjit Kumar Modi, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 44(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1753/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1753/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Ranjit Kumar Modi,………………………....……Appellant Room No. 419, 4Th Floor, 39, Kali Krishna Tagore Street, Burra Bazar, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Ajkpm9611Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-44(2), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Bishnu Kant Agarwal, C.A, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 30, 2025 O R D E R

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

that the assessee filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year on 25.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs.4,74,110/-. No scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was made in this case. Information was received from AIIMS data through ITBA

Sameer Ramesh Vashi, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-17, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 164/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Sameer Ramesh Vashi Vs The Principal Commissioner 702, Samrock Apartment, C.D. Of Income Tax, Barfiwala Road, Andheri-West, Mumbai-17 Mumbai - 400058 [Pan: Aaapv6356Q] Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Shri Rahul Hakani, Advocate Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Revisionary Order Of Pcit, Mumbai–17, Vide Order No. Itba/Com/F/17/2024- 25/1070374871(1), Dated 14.11.2024 Passed U/S. 263 Against The Assessment Order By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 14.03.2023 For Ay 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Pcit, Mumbai-17 Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 & Holding That Order Passed U/S 143(3) Dt 24-03-2021 Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Hence Directed The Ao To Reframe The Assessment.

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate and Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

present year under consideration was subjected to limited scrutiny and the issue relating to deemed rental income was not part of the limited scrutiny assessment. Hence, no revisionary proceedings can be undertaken in respect of the issue not covered by the limited scrutiny assessment. In respect of the preceding assessment ... year that is AY 2017-18, the case was selected for complete scrutiny and was not a limited scrutiny assessment. Hence, the facts for the two years are different. 4. After taking into account the submissions made by the assessee, ld. PCIT concluded that the assessment was made without proper

Sanjay, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 4(1)-Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5952/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 5952/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Sanjay Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Ca, M. R. Sahu, Ward-4(1), House No. 651, 1St Floor, Sector- Gurgaon, 10A, Near G. D. Goenka Public Haryana-122050 School, Gurgaon-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Eqsps3018G Assessee By : Sh. M. R. Sahu, Ca & Sh. Sudhir Yadav, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 Order

For Appellant: Sh. M. R. Sahu, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

declaring income of Rs. 6,35,470/-. His return was processed under section 143(1)(a) on 28.06.2019. His case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the e-assessment Scheme, 2019 on two issues, namely refund claim and winning from Lottery/crossword puzzle/horse races. The Ld. Assessing Officer ("AO") served

Uday Punj, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(1), Delhi

In the result, the reassessment proceedings initiated in this case is bad in law

ITA 3087/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Uday Punj, Vs. Dcit, Circle 19 (1), Chimes, New Delhi. 55, Sultanpur Farms, New Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaapp1309F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rahul Khare, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Order : 30.10.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 18.03.2025 For Assessment Year 2013-14 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Learned Cit-A Erred In Fact & In Law In Confirming The Reopening Of The Case U/S 147/148 Without Appreciating The Facts Which Is Not Only Bad In Law But Also Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 73

Further, it is humbly submitted that in terms of the well-settled law on the subject, once an Assessee has been subjected to a scrutiny assessment, review of such order indirectly by invoking the provisions of section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ["Act"], is impermissible. Meaning thereby ... thereto, it is also respectfully submitted that once a query on an issue has been raised by the AO during the course of the scrutiny assessment, which was duly responded / replied to by the Assessee, failure of the AO to not discuss the same in the assessment order would

Indraprastha Gas Limited, Delhi vs. JCIT OSD Range-10, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 2422/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

Return (‘ITR’) of the relevant year on 23.10.2018 declaring income of Rs.914,49,87,010/-. The case was picked up for scrutiny. Consequential scrutiny assessment was completed at income of Rs.927,94,09,651/-; wherein the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) disallowed the claim of (i) additional depreciation of Rs.9

Shri Antriksh Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-35(4), Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 2421/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 271ASection 271B

booth, filed his Income Tax Return (‘ITR’) on 26.07.2017 declaring income of Rs.2,69,190/-. The case was picked up for scrutiny. Consequentially, the scrutiny assessment was completed accepting the returned income. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) noticed that the assessee had neither maintained books