← 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

New India Exports Privat Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2016

ITA 2656/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. J.P. BairagraFor Respondent: 03/09/2025

return was duly processed and selected for . The return was duly processed and selected for . The return was duly processed and selected for scrutiny assessment. Statutory notices under the provisions of the scrutiny assessment. Statutory notices under the provisions of the scrutiny assessment. Statutory notices under the provisions

New India Exports Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2016

ITA 2655/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. J.P. BairagraFor Respondent: 03/09/2025

return was duly processed and selected for . The return was duly processed and selected for . The return was duly processed and selected for scrutiny assessment. Statutory notices under the provisions of the scrutiny assessment. Statutory notices under the provisions of the scrutiny assessment. Statutory notices under the provisions

Vijay Ramchand Panvelkar, Ambernath vs. Dy. CIT - 1, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 1020/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 244ASection 37Section 68

appellant had entrusted the matter to his Chartered Accountant. However, due to the resignation of the concerned employee who was handling the scrutiny assessment and was familiar with the case records, the CA office could not attend to and properly place the relevant evidence before the ld. CIT(A). This

Relationship Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2067/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Relationship Properties Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(1), 41-44, Sp Centre, Minoo V Mumbai Desai Marg, Colaba, S Mumbai – 400005. Pan/Gir No. Aadcr8947D (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rushav PatawariFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

During the year assessee shown income from House Property and Business and Profession. Case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under CASS, accordingly a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 11-08- 2018. During the course of assessment proceedings notices u/s 142(1) were

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Jwil Infra Limited, New Delhi

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

ITA 1831/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)

under normal provisions and loss of Rs. 7,05,17,651/- under MAT. 5. Return was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS and accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee vide which the assessee was asked to produce the complete bills and vouchers of the expenses claimed

Goodone Traders Private Limited, Delhi vs. CIT(A), Delhi

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

ITA 5591/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Goodone Traders Private Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Limited, 886A/47 (Appeals), Ward No. 6, Mehrauli Delhi Delhi- 1100 30 Pan: Aaacy2998Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Meenal Goyal, CA, Ms. VidhiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

income of Rs.4,46,51,650/- on 19.11.2014. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment for assessment year 2014-15 and order under Section 143(3) dated 07.12.2016 was passed for the year under consideration. As per information available

Sunita Saini, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Faridabad, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1877/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1877/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Sunita Saini, Income Tax Officer, House No.743P, Sector-38, Vs. Ward 1(4), Gurugram, Haryana. Faridabad. Pan No.Awmps2317Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 151Section 263

added to the income, relied on various case laws provided during reassessment proceedings. 5. Immediately previous AY 2012-13 was also under scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) and trading results are near to immediately previous scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3), relied on various case laws provided during reassessment proceedings

Security Printing and Mintingcorporation of India Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 22(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1665/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Y.K. Meghan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 234Section 40ASection 43B

high security inks. 4. The assessee filed its Return of Income declaring an income of Rs. 538,33,68,240/-. Return was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS and accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer assessed the income of the assessee ... Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Private Limited is declaration of law which is applicable to all proceedings whether it is scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act or the proceeding of processing tax return under Section 143(1) of the IT Act. Following

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Cnc Cac Charities, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2128/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2128/Chny/2025 यनिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19 & C.O. No.69/Chny/2025 [In Ita No.2128/Chny/2025] Income Tax Officer, M/S. Cnc Cac Charities, (Exemptions), No.39, Usman Road, Ward 4, Vs. T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aaaac 1912C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) / Cross Objector

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

fact that the only assessee which is in existence is CNC CAC Charities having PAN : AAAAC1912C. Further, the Ld.AR had placed on record, the scrutiny assessment orders for assessment years 2002-03 and 2013-14 framed u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 24.02.2025 and 14.03.2016 respectively in the name

Sun Ark Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd., Virudhunagar vs. ITO, Corporate Circle, Madurai

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

ITA 2071/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2071/Chny/2025 यनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19 Sun Ark Aluminium Income Tax Officer, Industries Private Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle, No.22, Chairman A, Madurai. Shanmugam Road, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu-626 123. [Pan:Aalcs3262Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.G.Baskar, Advocate, प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Revenue By : Mr.C.P.Solomon, Jcit.

For Appellant: Mr.G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.C.P.Solomon, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

enclosing complete details of import purchases together with the import documents thereon. It was also submitted before the Ld. PCIT that since the original scrutiny assessment was selected for limited scrutiny under the e- Page 3 of 6 ITA. No:2071/Chny/2025 assessment scheme of 2019 which mandated and warranted ... dispute that the assessee had indeed furnished the details of import purchases together with import documents thereon before the Ld.AO in the scrutiny assessment proceedings itself. But the Ld. PCIT is only trying to expand the scope of limited scrutiny by stating that the Ld.AO ought to have examined

Jackie Mahesh Vora, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4672/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal/Shri Akhilesh Deshmukh, A/RsFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. D/R
Section 37Section 57

that the assessee filed his return of income on 29/09/2018 declaring total income at Rs. 1,01,16,520/-. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. 5. While scrutinizing the return of income, the AO noticed that the assessee

Jalpa Nilesh Sheth, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4446/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. D/R) (virtually appeared)
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69

income on 30/07/2017 declaring total income of Rs. 10,49,720/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act but no scrutiny assessment was thereafter done. 6. As per the information received from ACIT, Central Circle-2, Thane, the AO came to know that the assessee during

Fairbridge Capital Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai - 6, Mumbai, Maharashtra

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3626/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah a/w Mr. Hardik Nirmal andFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT, D/R [virtually
Section 143(3)Section 263

opportunities in India. It filed its return of income on 24/12/2020 declaring total income of Rs.10,99,27,430/-. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and after thoroughly scrutinizing the return and considering the relevant documentary evidence submitted during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the assessment was framed ... page) 5. The issues raised by the ld. Pr. CIT in his notice were thoroughly examined and scrutinized during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings itself. Vide notice dated 05/01/2022 issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, the AO raised the following queries:- "Kindly refer the assessment proceedings for A.Y.2020-21

Mahesh Nanji Gami, Navi Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1560/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 1560/Mum/2025

For Appellant: Shri Khushiram Jhadwani, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik, Sr. D/R
Section 36Section 57

that the assessee filed his return of income on 16/03/2018 declaring total income at Rs.1,08,24,270/-. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. While scrutinizing the return of income, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed

Jain Textile Industries, Gurgaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed as devoid of

ITA 932/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Jain Textile Industries, V Assistant Commissioner Of 38, Milestone, Behrampur S Income Tax, Circle-1(1) Road, Village Khandsa, Hsiiddc Building, 4Th Floor, Gurgaon, Haryana Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon Pan: Aabfj8405F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Bhupender Jit Kumar, Adv, Sh. Nikhil Sharma, Adv & Sh. Tushar Kalra, Adv Revenue By Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 251(1)(a)

erred in upholding the validity of assumption of jurisdiction by the AO under section 147 of the Act, because the scrutiny assessment in the case of the Appellant was earlier completed on 30.09.2016 under section 143(3) of the Act and there was no fresh tangible material that came ... erred in upholding the validity of assumption of jurisdiction by the AO under section 147 of the Act, because the scrutiny assessment in the case of the Appellant was earlier completed on 06.01.2016 under section 143(3) of the Act 3 Jain Textile Industries Vs.ACIT and the reopening is made

Vijay Kumar Sharma, Muzaffarnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Muzaffarnagar

Appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 5401/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Gourav Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

assessee is an individual and derives income from salary and part time accounting during the year. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment after reopening u/s. 143(2) of the Act on the basis of information that the assessee has deposited cash

Agrawala Finserve Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-1(4), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3503/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain & Atul DhamaFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

bare perusal of reasons would show that the reason for which, assessment has been reopened has already been examined by the AO in scrutiny assessment proceedings. The ld. AR pointed that the AO in reasons recorded for reopening has referred to four names i.e. M/s. Sunrise Dealmark Ltd., M/s. Shyama ... Adhik Multitrade P. Ltd. and Akul Multitrade P. Ltd. The ld. AR referring to the original assessment proceedings submitted that the AO in scrutiny assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Act, sought information u/s.133(6) of the Act from M/s. MJH Consultants P. Ltd. one of the investors

Anjali Jain, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 53(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3239/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.3239/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2017-18) Anjali Jain, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant R-25, Ndse-Ii, New Delhi 110049 Pan: Aaipj-2323-D बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-53(1) ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Civic Centre, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : S/Shri Sanchit Jain, Chartered Accountant & Archit Agarwal, "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 24/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 11.04.2025, For Assessment Year 2017-18.] 2. Shri Sanchit Jain, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Gold, Diamond & Precious Stone Jewelry. For The Impugned Assessment Year, The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income On 31.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,99,260/-. The Case Of The Assessee For Ay 2017-18 Was Reopened & Notice U/S. 148 Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated

For Appellant: S/Shri Sanchit Jain, Chartered Accountant &For Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 151Section 69A

reopened asthere were cash deposits of Rs.11,34,500/- in the bank account of the assessee. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings the assessee explained the source of cash deposits as under:- Amount Source Rs.2,40,000/- Past savings of the assessee (Stree Dhan) Rs.4,00,000/- Earlier withdrawals

Sri Prem Properties Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 957/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Sri Prem Properties Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 24 (1), A – 99, Bajghera Chowk, Delhi. New Palam Vihar, Gurgaon – 122 017 (Haryana). (Pan :Aaacs2554E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Skasham Agarwal, Ca Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2025 Date Of Order : 24.10.2025 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)-23, New Delhi [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)]Dated 04.01.2024 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 30.09.2012 Declaring An Income Of Rs.2,15,340/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny For The Year Under Consideration.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, CIT DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148

observed that BIDPL has adopted the same modus operandi to claim forfeited amount as business expenses in AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. Scrutiny assessment of BIDPL was completed and made addition of Rs.5 crores as forfeiture amount of earnest money. They also observed that the group is involved

Juniper Networks Solution India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC Itd, New Delhi

In the result, ground no 3 raised by the assessee is allowed in its favour

ITA 4400/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Juniper Networks Solution India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assessment Unit, Unit No.Iia, 06Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Nfac Itd, Parliament Street, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aaecj1345A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate Shri Sandeep Bhalla, Advocate Shri Anurag Singhal, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Order : 24.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.07.2024 Passed By The Income Tax Department, Assessment Unit U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13)/144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

declaring total loss of Rs.49,78,97,850/-and deemed total income u/s 115JB at Rs.0/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS, therefore notice u/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee company vide notice bearing DIN: ITBAIAST/S/143