“complete scrutiny”

Assessment ProceduresSection 143(3)Section 143(3)2,579 judgments

SHALBY LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1227/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2020-21

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80G

filed its return of income for A.Y. 2020-21 on 28.05.2021 declaring total income of Rs.6,83,24,890/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. In the course of assessment of the AO had made disallowance of Rs. 35,96,047/- on account of deduction claimed under

DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. ODDIVILLE FOODS AND FROZEN, INDORE

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed\nand the order of the Ld

ITA 427/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 35ASection 80

only and claimed deduction of Rs.\n8,60,92,253/- u/s.35AD of the Income-tax Act.\nThereafter, case was selected for complete scrutiny and assessment\norder u/s.143(3) has been passed on 04.02.2021 by accepting the\nreturned income of the assessee. Afterwards, case was selected for\nrevision ... above. From the submissions made by assessee,\nfollowing conclusions can be drawn:\nGround Nos.1 to 3\n1. Assessee firm's case was selected for complete scrutiny as evident from\nassessment order itself, where in first para itself it has been specifically\nmentioned that case was selected for Complete scrutiny assessment

ITO, WARD 21(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. M/S RETRO FOOTWEARS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

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

ITA 3291/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2017-18] Ito, Ward-21(1), M/S Retro Footwear Private Limited, Room No.220, C.R. Building, J-19, Udyog Nagar, I.P. Estate, Vs New Delhi-110041 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aadcr3787M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Pramod Kumar, Ca & Shri Mukul Gupta, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

declaring an income of Rs.14,78,840/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected under CASS for complete scrutiny. Statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 10.08.2018 was issue and served upon the assessee. Thereafter notices u/s 142(1) alongwith questionnaire

ITO, LUDHIANA vs. ARUN GUPTA, LUDHIANA

ITA 112/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Krinwant Sahay, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.112/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ito Arun Gupta बनाम/ Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar 1698 – New Shakti Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab - 141001 Ludhiana, Punjab - 141001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abkpg-4933-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. B.M. Monga & Sh. Rohit Kaura (Advocates) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-01-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 19-03-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Krinwant Sahay () This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 04.12.2024, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2021-22. The Revenue Has Challenged The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Setting Aside The Assessment Order To The File Of The Assessing Officer For Fresh Adjudication.

For Appellant: Sh. B.M. Monga & Sh. Rohit Kaura (Advocates)For Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) Ld. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 251Section 68Section 69C

case are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacturing proprietorship in the name of "Mahavir Impex." The case was selected for complete scrutiny to verify substantial purchases from non-filers and discrepancies between GSTR-1 and ITR turnover. During the assessment proceedings, the AO issued several notices under Section

NARENDRA BANSAL,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRLCE -12(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6178/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanasstt. Year : 2016-17 Narendra Bansal, Vs. Acit, Circle 12(2), A-61, Okhla Industrial Area, Delhi Phase-Ii, New Delhi – 110 020 C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi – 2 [Pan: Ahdpb0964E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Ankit Kumar, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

that assessee company filed its return of income on 30.11.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 56,06,42,010/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act dated 8.8.2017 was issued and served upon the assessee. Thereafter, notices

THE BOMBAY DYEING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 5274/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Jm\Nand\Nms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Am\N\Nita No.5274/Mum/2025\N(Assessment Year: 2018-19)\Nm/S. The Bombay Dyeing And\Nmanufacturing Company Limited,\Nneville House, Jn Heredia Marg,\Nballard Estate,\Nmumbai - 400 001\Npan: Aaact2328K\Nvs.\Nnational Faceless Appeal Centre,\Ndelhi (Deputy Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1),\Nmumbai - 400001\N(Appellant)\N(Respondent)\Nassessee By\N:\Nshri Yogesh Thar, A.R.\Nms. Sukanya Jairam, A.R &\Nshri Saurabh Surana, A.R.\Nrespondent By\N:\Nshri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Ar\Ndate Of Hearing\N:\N22.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N:\N18.03.2025\Norder\Nper Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:\Nthis Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned\Ncommissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. Cit(A)' For Short], National Faceless\Nappeal Centre (‘Nfac' For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'),\Npertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.' For Short) 2018-19.\N2.\Nthe Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N“1. Ground No. 1: Disallowance Of Rs. 4,65,28,171/- Under Section 14A Of The\Nact:\N1.

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 250Section 43C

return on 31.03.2019 declaring total income at Rs.Nil and book profits at\nRs.Nil u/s.115JB of the Act. The assessee's case was selected for complete scrutiny under\nthe e-assessment scheme, 2019 on the following issues:\nS.No.\nIssues\nClaim of Any Other Amount Allowable as Deduction in Schedule BP\nStock

RELIANCE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, MUBMAI

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

ITA 3751/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Reliance Industrial Principal Commissioner Of Income Infrastructure Limited, Tax – 3, 5Th Floor, Nkm International House, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 178 Backbay Reclamation Marine Maharshi Karve Road, Lines Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan:Aaacr7637P (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

under consideration M/s. Reliance Industrial Infrastructure Limited dated 10.02.2021 declaring total income at Rs.17,37,25,670/-. The assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for the following reasons: “1. Reduction in profit because of application of Income Computation & Disclosure Standards. 2. Large refund claimed

SELVARAJ MANOHARAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3794/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.3793 & 3794/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Selvaraj Manoharan, The Income Tax Officer, No.96 A V V Koil Street, Vs. Non-Corp Circle-7(1), Thiruvalleswarar Nagar, Chennai. Thirumangalam, Chennai – 600 040. [Pan:Agkpm-7433-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. M.S. Pandian, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Mr. M.S. Pandian, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 40Section 44A

return of income on 24.03.2021, by declaring total income of Rs.21,88,190/- for the AY 2020-21. The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS and statutory notices issued to the assessee and called for details. In response, the assessee has submitted written submission along with

SELVARAJ MANOHARAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3793/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. M.S. Pandian, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 40Section 44A

THIRUVIAM VIVEKANANDAN,TIRUNELVELI vs. ITO, WARD-5,, CUDDALORE

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

ITA 1576/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.:1576/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Thiruviam Vivekanandan, Ito, 364, A/1, 5Th Middle Street, Vs. Ward -5, Thiagaraja Nagar, Cuddalore. Maharaja Nagar, Tirunelveli – 627 011. [Pan:Adjpv-4168-J) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. T. Mythili, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

impugned Assessment Year 2017-18 by declaring an Income of Rs.7,97,390/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny by CASS. Accordingly, the statutory notices were issued to the assessee and as per the information furnished, the AO found that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.9

RAGHANI TRADELINK,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1692/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1692/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Raghani Tradelink The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ B-239, 2Nd Floor, Ward-1(3)(1) V/S. Sumeel Business Park-3 Ahmedabad Sarangpur B/H. New Cloth Market Ahmedabad – 380 002 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aavfr 9778 D (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

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

sellers. The assessee filed its return of income on 15/02/2021 declaring an income of Rs.91,74,530/-. The case was selected for Complete Scrutiny Assessment under CASS for the issue regarding Business expenses including large Commission expenses and showing low net profit. 4.1. During the assessment proceedings, in response

ACIT22(1), MUMBAI vs. UNIQUE BANGLES, MUMBAI

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

ITA 7427/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaracit-22(1) Unique Bangles, 322, Piramal 232/234, Shah & Chambers, Mumbai – Vs. Nahar Industrial 400 013. Estate, S. J. Mar, Dhanraj Mill Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400019 Pan/Gir No. Aadfu8125A (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Assessee By Shri Subhash Chhajed & Shri Sunil Vankawala, Ld. Ars Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2026

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 68

from its business activities. The return was initially processed under section 143(1) on 19.02.2024. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS primarily for the following reasons: i. High liabilities as compared to low income/receipts; and ii. Large turnover from the gems and jewellery

MOOKKAN NAGAPPAN,TIRUCHIRAPPALLI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), TRICHY, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1990/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.A.G. SudharshanFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 69

filed his return of income (RoI/ITR) for AY 2017-18 on 09.08.2017 declaring total income at ₹14,47,040/-. The ITR was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. The AO is noted to have, inter-alia, asked the assessee to explain the nature and source of the Specified Bank Notes

SHILPA SHETTY KUNDRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-5(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, in the above terms

ITA 996/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan, Adv. & RaviFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (SR. D.R.)

Section 133(6)Section 194CSection 250

year under consideration, has declared her total income at Rs.10,84,45,500/- by filing return of income dated 04.02.2021, which was selected for complete scrutiny on the following reasons: “1. Brought forward TDS credit claimed is substantially less than TDS credit forward in the return of preceding assessment year

MAHARASHTRA MARITIME BOARD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - EXEM. CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 8938/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

exemption u/s 11 of the Act and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny for the reason large receipts reported by trust for “charitable purpose”. Notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were duly issued

MAHARASHTRA MARITIME BOARD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - EXEM. CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 8937/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

MAHARASHTRA MARITIME BOARD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - EXEM. CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 8936/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

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

ITA 4872/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 156Section 234ASection 270ASection 37Section 41Section 41(1)(a)

filed its return of income for assessment year under consideration declaring total income of Rs.26,79,29,490/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to assessee along with notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. In response

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2607/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 69C

{ "clean_text": "ITA No. 2607/Del/2019\n\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH ‘F': NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI S

SHRI DURDUNDESHWAR URBAN CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI NYT,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 311/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita No. 306 To 307 & 311/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2020-21 Shri Durdundeshwar Urban Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamita Subhash Road, Sankeshwar Belagavi-591313 Pan:Aaaas5612D . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Rijula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

filed on 08/12/2020 declaring an income of ₹Nil after claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act of ₹94,82,295/- was also selected for complete scrutiny & consequential assessment therefore was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act whereby total income of the assessee owning to similar denial of deduction ITAT

Showing 1–20 of 2,579 · Page 1 of 129

...