← 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

Quetzal Buildtech Private Limited, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Haryana

ITA 6409/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 234BSection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6409/Del/2025 Assessment

ACIT Central Circle-1 Raipur, Raipur vs. Maruti Clean Coal and Power Limited, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 558/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. /It(Ss)A No.19/Rpr/2025 Co No.19/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.) ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited 8Th Floor, Cbd Complex, Sector-21, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Raipur-492 018 Pan: Aadcm4810C ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Salil Kapoor &For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, CIT-DR

books of account were not rejected and secondly, such expenses were allowed consistently in post in High Court upheld order passed by High Court scrutiny assessments Tribunal was to be dismissed. SLP filed against view taken by the High Court was to be dismissed. The key points emanating from ... assessee held firstly, the Revenue has failed to reject books of account of the assessee and second, such expenses were allowed consistently in past scrutiny assessments. 29. Reverting to the facts of the case before us, that suppose, the A.O was not satisfied with the documents/evidences submitted by the assessee

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune, Pmt Building, Swargate vs. Shivai Vidya Prasarak Mandal, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2536/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Milind PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234A

assessment proceedings, or before in appellate authority, however, we notice that in the instant case, the case of the assessee was not selected for scrutiny assessment and it was mere processing of return by the computer with the set program. Had it been the case of scrutiny proceeding

Jadav Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2911/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2911/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 68

contention of the assessee is that the reopening based on the same set of information which was already subject to scrutiny assessment is not valid. In this regard we notice that even in the reasons recorded it is stated that the addition made u/s.143(3) needs to be enhanced

Movate Technologies Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2467/CHNY/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

assessee filed its return of income on15.02.2021, declaring Rs.28,52,61,330/-. The return of income was taken up for scrutiny assessment under CASS and a reference was made u/s.92CA(1) of the Act to the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing Officer, Corporate Circle, Chennai (“Transfer Pricing Officer

Thippareddy Govindareddy Malli Reddy, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Central Circle 2(3), Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 763/BANG/2025[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 69A

vehemently objected to the same. He submitted that since the provision of the law under section 153C allows for taking up the cases for scrutiny assessment covered under section 153C where search action was conducted before 1 April 2021. He submits that in the present case the assessment year ... been contended by the assessee. He submits that however section 143 of the Act allows for taking of the cases for scrutiny assessment by issuing a notice under section 143 (2) before the expiry of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Freightbridge Logistics Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 7792/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh a/w Mr. Akshay PawarFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44B

assessee filed the return by declaring total income of Rs.9,31,33,090/-. The assessee’s case was taken for scrutiny and during the scrutiny assessment the assessee was asked the details of creditors which is reflected in his books of accounts. Out of the 100 creditors 26 creditor

Bang Equity Broking Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7504/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anant N. Pai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 55

being unable to provide any cost details of BSE card/Share of BSEL plus despite being specifically called for before the appellant in course of scrutiny assessment. It is observed from the above submission of the appellant that they have claimed cost of acquisition of 30,000 BSE share ( purchased

Siddharth Bhaskar Shah, Mumbai vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-27, New Mumbai

ITA 3327/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kantι.Τ.Α. Νο. 3327/Mum/2025 Α.Υ: 2022-23 Siddharth Bhaskar Shah Vs Pcit -27 803, Neelkanth Indraprastha, Valley, Rajawadi, Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai - 400077 Pan – Bigps6015Q Room No. 401, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Rly Stn, Commercial Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By | Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By | Shri Vivek Permapurna, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 19.11.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.02.2026 Order Per: Shri. Sandeep Gosain, J.M.: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dt. 24.04.2025 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), By The Pr.Cit(A) For The Assessment Year 2022-23. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That Where The A.O. After Detailed Verification Of Record & Making Enquires Had Framed The Assessment, The Revision Powers Conferred On The Principal Cit Under Section 263 Of Act, Cannot Invoked Only Based On A Change Of Opinion. 2

Section 263Section 54F

1 IN THE INCOME ТАХ АРРELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

Mukul Rohatgi, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 61(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2427/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri Sachit Jolly, Senior Advocate
Section 112ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 24Section 263

Assessing Officer, during the course of original assessment proceedings, examined these in detail as assessee has filed complete details before the Assessing Officer during scrutiny assessment. 4. On the other hand, learned CIT-DR argued that the Assessing Officer has not carried out verification and the PCIT, in terms ... assessee has rightly declared. We also noted that these details were filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer during the course of scrutiny assessment and the Assessing Officer, after examining all these details, reached to a conclusion that these are equity-oriented funds and he formed an opinion

Multi Mantech International Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Circle 17(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 3480/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pallav, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(ii)Section 80G

that the assessee electronically filed its Return of Income on 29.04.2014 declaring an income of Rs. 1,99,61,610/-. Return was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS and accordingly, statutory notices alongwith questionnaire were issued and served upon the assessee. 4. The assessee is a private limited company, incorporated

Venkatanarayana Peetha, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

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

ITA 731/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: the AO, an addition of Rs.12.51 lakhs was made u/s 69A of the Act. While concluding the assessment, the Ld.AO has mentioned that the assessee opened an account in the Corporation Bank, Brundavan Gardens, Guntur only during demonetisation period, which clearly exhibits and deemed that the assessee has accommodated others money to deposit in his bank account in the guise of sources emanated out of agricultural savings of him. It was also mentioned that the vague explanation given with regard

Section 153CSection 69A

assessment year 2017-18. 2. In the above mentioned case, an amount of Rs.12.51 lakhs was added by the AO, while completing the scrutiny assessment for the A.Y.2017-18, as the assessee could not explain the sources of deposits made into his bank account. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee

M/S Shivansh Infraestate Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow vs. Dy. CIT Range-6, Lucknow

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

ITA 106/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 M/S Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Block-A, Surajdeep Income Tax, Range-6, 3Rd Floor, Complex, 1-Jopling Road, 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001 P.K. Complex, Lucknow Pan: Aaqcs5896P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.01.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 30.12.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1- The Ld. Cit (A) Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Ground That Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued By Ito-6(1) Lucknow On 01.04.2016 Without Appreciating That Jurisdiction Of Case Lies With Dcit, Range-6, Lucknow, Hence The Notice Issued By Ito-6(1) Is Without Jurisdiction & Invalid. Further, No Notice U/S 143(2) Has Been Issued By Jurisdictional Dcit, Range-Vi, Lucknow Within The Period As Per Section 143(2) Of L. T. Act. Hence The Present Assessment Is Invalid, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2- The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Upheld The Addition Without Appreciating That Ld. A. O. Rejected The Books Of Account & Instead Of Estimating The Net Profit, Additions Were Made On The Basis Of Same Books Of Account By Disallowing Expenses Under Different Heads Total Rs. 1,75,91,607/- & Addition U/S 68 R. W. S. 115Bbe Of I. T. Act For Rs. 1,32,78,833/- Which Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

disallowance on two grounds, firstly, assessee's books of account were not rejected and secondly, such expenses were allowed consistently in post in scrutiny assessments - High Court upheld order passed by Tribunal Whether SLP filed against view taken by High Court was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. M/S Schaeffler India Ltd, Vadodara

ITA 2036/AHD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Asst. Year 2007-08, assessee filed its Return of Income declaring total income of Rs.59,30,95,740/-. The return was taken for scrutiny assessment and referred to Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the Arms’ Length Price u/s. 92CA(1) of the Act. Ld TPO made addition of Rs.350.56 lakh

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. M/S Schaeffler India Ltd, Vadodara

ITA 2019/AHD/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Asst. Year 2007-08, assessee filed its Return of Income declaring total income of Rs.59,30,95,740/-. The return was taken for scrutiny assessment and referred to Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the Arms’ Length Price u/s. 92CA(1) of the Act. Ld TPO made addition of Rs.350.56 lakh

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. M/S Schaeffler India Ltd, Vadodara

ITA 2018/AHD/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Asst. Year 2007-08, assessee filed its Return of Income declaring total income of Rs.59,30,95,740/-. The return was taken for scrutiny assessment and referred to Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the Arms’ Length Price u/s. 92CA(1) of the Act. Ld TPO made addition of Rs.350.56 lakh

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. M/S Schaeffler India Ltd, Vadodara

ITA 2017/AHD/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Asst. Year 2007-08, assessee filed its Return of Income declaring total income of Rs.59,30,95,740/-. The return was taken for scrutiny assessment and referred to Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the Arms’ Length Price u/s. 92CA(1) of the Act. Ld TPO made addition of Rs.350.56 lakh

M/S. Bodal Chemicals Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 104/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 35(1)(ii)Section 80Section 801ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

donations made to the Trust. 4. In view of above, I am directed to state that the pending scrutiny assessment cases of donors who have claimed irregular weighted deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) should be handled in light of above facts. In case of donors whose cases are presently

Rajani Chandrakala Ponna, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1666/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1666/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Rajani Chandrakala Vs. Income Tax Officer Ponna, Ward 16(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Amfpp2816A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri T Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against By The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit (A) Nfac, Delhi, Dated 17.09.2025 For The A.Y 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Advocate A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri T Sunil Gowtham, Sr. AR
Section 69A

after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee observed that the assessee has filed a cash flow statement only during the scrutiny assessment proceedings without furnishing any evidence that the said cash flow statement has been furnished along with the return of income. This clearly indicates that the explanation

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Ramesh Babu Segu, Hyderabad

ITA 1277/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1277/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2017-18) Acit, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) Vs. Ramesh Babu Segu, Hyderabad. Pan: Amrps2069N (Respondent) C.O. No.03/Hyd/2025 (In आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1277/Hyd/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2017-18) Ramesh Babu Segu, Hyderabad. Pan: Amrps2069N (Appellant) Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri K A Sai Prasad, Ca राजस्व द्वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad ("Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 11/10/2024 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Also Raised The Cross Objection For The A.Y.2017-

For Appellant: Shri K A Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 65BSection 69C

considering the fact that the contents of seized pen drive were confirmed by the AR of Sri Polisetty Shyam Sunder during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) rws 153C of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case