“scrutiny assessment”

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai vs. Amardeep Constructions, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri. Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri. Anikesh Banerjeedcit, Central Circle -1(3), Mumbai Amardeep Constructions Room No. 903, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha 7/08, Patidar Complex, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai Kannamwar Nagar No. 2, Near 400020 Vikas High School Vikhroli East, Mumbai 400083 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaufa3513A (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररतीकीओरसे/ Assessee By: Shri. J.P. Bairagra& Ms. Rupa Nanda /Revenue By: Shri. Surendra Mohan (Sr. Dr)

same has been accepted by the department till the A.Y. 2024-25 even the Ld. AOaccepted the project completion method in scrutiny assessment order passed for the Α.Υ. 2017-18.The assessee company had received the advances on which the purchasers deducted TDS. However, the assessee company had not claimed credit

Balajee Infratech & Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

From assessment years 2008–09 to 2019–20, similar royalty payments had been incurred and 3 Balajee Infratech & Constructions Pvt. Ltd., consistently accepted in scrutiny assessments framed under section 143(3). During the year under consideration, the assessee had incurred an aggregate royalty expenditure of about ₹2.46 crores ... business of earth moving and quarrying. Royalty payments to both government and private parties have been made year after year and accepted in scrutiny assessments. The payment to Mr. Adhikari was made through proper banking channels with due deduction of tax at source. The relationship between Mr. Adhikari

Ratan Bhaubali Bhalwankar, Mumbai vs. ACIT-16(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarmr. Ratan Bahubali V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Bhalwankar बनाम Income Tax – 16(3), C/O – 2Nd Floor, Gita Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - Building, Sion Circle, 400021, Maharashtra Mumbai - 400 022, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpb7285Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Ratan Bhaubali Bhalwankar Return of Income declaring total income of Rs. 19,99,247/-. Thereafter, its case was selected for scrutiny assessment. During the year under consideration, assessee sold shares of PS IT Infrastructure and Services Limited, for a consideration of Rs. 2,47,64,002/- and had claimed exemption

ACIT (Cir.) - 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bhandar Power Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Bhandar Power Ltd. Income Tax, 14Th Floor, Essar House, Circle 6(1)(2), 11, K. K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400034 (Pan: Aaacb6693B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, Fca & Shri Tarang Mehta, Advocate Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Delhi, Vide Order Dated 25.01.2018 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito 6(1)(4), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 20.12.2016, For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Income Tax Act Of Rs. 203,13,43,740/-Without Considering The Fact That The Provisions Of Section 801A(10) Is Clearly Attracted In This Case Hence The Assessee Is Not Eligible For Claiming Deduction U/S 801A Of The Income Tax Act.

three assessment years, on the basis of PPA executed by the assessee with Essar Steel India Ltd., Assessing Officer has allowed deduction u/s.80-IA in scrutiny assessments made u/s. 143(3) as under:- A.Y. Date of Order 2007-08 23.03.2009 2008-09 24.12.2010 2009-10 26.12.2011 10. It is also worth

Ramesh Jaisinghani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

return was not filed, the claim was raised through written submissions and supported by documents already on record. 8. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings initiated under section 143(2), the Assessing Officer called for various details, including the computation of capital gains offered by the assessee

M/S. Unique Pharmaceutical Laboratories Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

said order are reproduced below: – “7. Even if no specific enquiry was made by the AO during the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings, but being a debatable issue it is outside the purview of revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act. At this stage, it is relevant to note

Atos Information Technologies Hk Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Tax)-1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

tech transactional services. The assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.6,64,89,345/-. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. 4. 1. During the year under consideration, the receipts from India for which

National Payments Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemptions), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

that assessee filed its regular return of income on 11.02.2021, reporting total income at Nil. Case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment by issuing notice u/s 143(2). Reasons for the said selection are listed below: i. Business Income of Trust ii. Accumulation of Income by Trust ... record. Ld. A.O. completed the assessment by taking note of all these submissions. In the assessment order, he noted that statutory notices necessary for scrutiny assessment were issued and duly served on the assessee which were duly complied. Thus, he completed the assessment by accepting the income returned

Urmish M. Udani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

machinery of assessment fails and the assessee cannot be allowed to do so. On the one hand, the assessee furnishes all the information for scrutiny assessment but fails to comply with the direction issued by the Assessing Officer under section 148 of the Act on 30.03.2010 to file return ... income within period of 30 days. The assessee does not file any return of income. Even thereafter, scrutiny assessment proceedings were taken up and the assessee had participated in the scrutiny assessment proceedings. Thereafter, the alleged return of income is claimed to be filed vide letter dated