← All Phrases

“complete scrutiny”

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

The decision most relied on for complete scrutiny is Dr. C. Balakrishnan Nair v. CIT (237 ITR 70), cited in 42 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on complete scrutiny

Dr. C. Balakrishnan Nair v. CIT
237 ITR 70 · 1999 · High Court
42
citing judgments

A restraint order under Section 132(3) cannot be passed solely on the ground that scrutiny of documents or assets could not be completed during a search, as the search process must be continuous. Additionally, Section 158BC (Chapter XIV-B) cannot be invoked if there is no violation of the Income-tax Act, such as when valid exemptions are claimed.

Amal Kumar Ghosh v. Asstt. CIT
361 ITR 458 · 2014 · High Court
39
citing judgments

The selection of cases for scrutiny must be completed within the time prescribed by CBDT instructions. The department is bound by its own standards and cannot act with discrimination or selectively apply them.

70 ITD 214 11. Jain Bharat Tanners Vs. CIT (Mad) 264 ITR 673 12. Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CIT(Mad)
101 ITD 495 · 2006 · ITAT
35
citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct necessary inquiries or investigate facts when circumstances warrant it, demonstrating a lack of complete scrutiny. This failure to act as an investigator and not just an adjudicator can trigger revision under Section 263.

ITO v. V.R. Global Energy (P.) Ltd.
113 Taxmann.com 31 · 2020 · Supreme Court
21
citing judgments

Share capital and share premium cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, especially when cash did not pass at any stage and entries made a complete round. The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal against this view.

CIT v. Smt. Padmavathi
120 Taxmann.com 187 · 2020 · High Court
20
citing judgments

An assessment order cannot be held erroneous and prejudicial to revenue if the Assessing Officer (AO) could not have travelled beyond the issues forming the subject matter of 'limited scrutiny'. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) cannot invoke Section 263 to set aside an assessment on grounds not forming part of the limited scrutiny.

2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) 5. Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v. Arvind Jewellers
253 ITR 124 · 2002 · High Court
13
citing judgments

A revisionary order under Section 263 is invalid if it is based on the same facts and involves extensive enquiry after the assessment proceedings were completed, implying a lack of application of mind during the original assessment.

Bakshi Vikram Vikas Construction Co. P. Ltd. v. DCIT
131 CTR 203 · 1996 · High Court
11
citing judgments

The Project Completion Method (PCM) for accounting is a recognized and scientifically sound method that has judicial approval for real estate businesses, allowing profit or loss to be recognized only upon project completion.

CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 7. CIT v. Hastings Properties
247 ITR 555 · 2001 · High Court
11
citing judgments

A Principal Commissioner (PCIT) cannot assume jurisdiction under Section 263 merely because the Assessing Officer's (AO) view is not acceptable, if the AO has made due enquiries and taken a plausible view.

Judgments citing complete scrutiny

Kundan Jayantilal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. ITO, Circle 4, Thane

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

ITA 6522/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarkundan Jayantilal Bhatt Ito Cirlce-4, 277, Kundan Bunglow Room No. 2, Ashar Behind Yashwant Heights, Vs. It Park, 6Th Floor, Opp. Vidyavihar School, Road No. 16Z, Virar (West), Shivansai, Wagle Industrial Thane, Maharashtra – Estate, Thane, 401 303 Maharashtra- 400604 Pan/Gir No. Adjpb4878K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

Section 142ASection 142A(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56(2)(vii)

return of income for A.Y. 2016–17 was filed on 06.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 30,10,680/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings

More Mauli Co-Op Credit Society Limited Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5651/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

amounting to Rs.63,61,338/- and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The assessee's case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS on the issue of “deductions from total income under chapter VIA, investments/advances/loans". Notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were

More Mauli Co-Op Credit Society Limited Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5650/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

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

For Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

amounting to Rs.63,61,338/- and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS on the issue of “deductions from total income under chapter VIA, investments/advances/loans”. Notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were

More Mauli Co-Op Credit Society Limited Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5649/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

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

Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

amounting to Rs.63,61,338/- and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The assessee's case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS on the issue of “deductions from total income under chapter VIA, investments/advances/loans". Notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were

Nayan Rajendra Kshatriya, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed on above terms

ITA 5530/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 69

dated 31.03.2021 declaring total income at Rs.20,96,060/- and had claimed refund of Rs.2,44,170/-. The assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for verifying the reason for the reduced taxable income in the revised return. Notices

Nayan Rajendra Kshatriya, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed on above terms

ITA 5529/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 69

dated 31.03.2021 declaring total income at Rs.20,96,060/- and had claimed refund of Rs.2,44,170/-. The assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for verifying the reason for the reduced taxable income in the revised return. Notices

Anshu Dhawan, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4182/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmananshu Dhawan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, House No.933, Sector 17B, Delhi. Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aggpd5365D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Shri Ankur Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 Date Of Order : 30.01.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250

much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi in making the assessment in complete scrutiny as against the case of the Appellant was selected for scrutiny under CASS for reason "Long term Capital Gains and High Improvement Cost" and in disallowing

Itron India Private Limited, Noida vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(1), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, this appeal is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2828/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Manish Agarwalitron India Private Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-10(1) C-7, Sector-3, Gautam Cr Building , Ip Estate, Budh Nagar, Noida, New Delhi – 110002 Uttar Pradesh – 201301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcs6575L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr
Section 11Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(A)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144B

made by the Ld. AO, CPC, Bengaluru in order u/s. 143(1) of the IT Act. Thereafter, the case is selected for Complete Scrutiny under CASS. The Ld. AO, Assessment Unit has passed an order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C (13) read with section 144B of the Income

Sh. Ramesh Yadav, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward-3(5), Gurgaon

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

ITA 2447/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year 2014-15 Shri Ramesh Yadav, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 236, Sector-6, Manesar Imt, Ward-3(5), Gurgaon, Haryana Gurgaon Pan No. Acbpy6351M Pin: 122016 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & SakshamFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

along with 2 questionnaire was issued on 18.07.2016, fixing the case for 27.07.2016.The case was selected under Limited Scrutiny, which was converted into complete scrutiny with the prior approval of worthy Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon vide his office letter bearing No.6835 dated 08.12.2016. In response to the notices

Patel Seva Sangh, Bokaro Steel City vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (National E-Assessment Centre), Ranchi

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

ITA 486/RAN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Patel Seva Sangh, I.T.O., C/O-Sardar Patel Public School, Sector- Exemption, Vs. 9, Bokaro-827009 (Jharkhand) Hazaribagh. Pan No. Aabtp 2202 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 44ASection 56

cause of justice." 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant is a Trust and its case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment on following two issues i.e. (i) Deductions from Income from other sources and (ii) refund Claim. Accordingly, the case was selected for scrutiny through

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Kolhapur vs. Pawan Bhageria, Ichalkaranji

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2775/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2775/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Circle-1, Kolhapur. Vs. Pawan Bhageria, 25, Shopping Centre, First Floor, Main Road, Ichalkaranji- 416115. Pan : Abfpb8610H Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar Assessee By : Shri Shekhar Patwardhan & Shri Vikrant Joshi Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac U/S 250 Of The Act Dated 22.09.2025 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act For Assessment Year 2018-19 Framed On 27.09.2021 By The Ito, Nfac, Delhi. 2. Revenue Has Raised Five Grounds Of Appeal But Effectively There Are Two Grievances Of The Revenue. Ground No.1- Mandatory

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar Patwardhan &For Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69B

declared in the return filed for A.Y. 2018-19 on 21.09.2018 and the same was subsequently revised on 15.10.2018 and 01.02.2019. Case selected for complete scrutiny to examine (i) source of loans/advances and (ii) income from other sources. The assessee is in the business of wholesale trading of yarn

Nutaan Sarada Himghar, Hooghly vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 23(1), Hooghly

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1794/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1794/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Nutaan Sarada Himghar, Vs Acit, Cc-23 (1), Hooghly C/O S.N.Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata,Wb-700001 Pan No. :Aagfn 5178 G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Hussain, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(2)

dated 10.08.2018, specifies only computer aided scrutiny selection which neither 9 mentioned it either to be a limited or a complete scrutiny nor compulsory manual scrutiny. Thus, the said notice has been issued in violation of the instruction issued by CBDT as noted above. In our opinion, the revenue authorities

Manackraj Kamaraj, Ambur vs. ITO, Non Corpate Ward 11(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2541/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2541/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Manackraj Kamaraj Ito Ncw 11(2) No. 23/10, Ramar Koil Street, Chennai Ambur-635 802. Tamil Nadu [Pan: Alzpk 7476 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 156Section 68

limited scrutiny and the AO exceeded jurisdiction by treating the issue as cash credits without approval of the Pr. CIT for conversion into complete scrutiny. All detailed explanations and confirmations from relatives and friends were furnished, which were not examined by the AO. He further noted that the credit card

DCIT 27(1), Mumbai vs. Ashok Kumar Valchand Jain, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5887/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

deleted as the same was outside the scope of Limited Scrutiny in this case, whereas the case of the assessee was selected for “Complete Scrutiny”? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing the appeal ... reasons/issues for which the case was chosen. However, if there is a potential income escapement of over Rs.10,00,000 apart from CASS information, complete scrutiny can be done with approval from the administrative Principal Commissioner of Income Tax/Commissioner of Income Tax. The CBDT has clarified that expanding the scope

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Gaurav Dalmia, Delhi

In the result, additional ground 1 under Rule 27 of the assessee is

ITA 4162/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

revised return of income on 22.03.2017 without making any change in the original return of the income. Thereafter, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under Page 8 of 30 ITA No.4162/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2016-17] The Dy. C.I.T. Vs. Gaurav Dalmia CASS. Accordingly, notice

Liberty Shoes Ltd, Liberty Puram G.T.Karnal Road Kutail Distt Karnal vs. PCIT Rohtak Haryana, DCIT Karnal Haryana

ITA 2206/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

return of income on 10.02.2021, declaring total income of INR 20,14,05,280/-. The case of the assessee company was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and the assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B ... Orders is erroneous, illegal and uncalled for.” 4. Ld.AR for the assessee submits that case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, AO has made detailed inquiries and verifications of the items shown in the Balance sheet and the expenses claimed

Mahender Malik, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward -(1), Hisar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5586/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Mahender Malik, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 388, Satroad Khurad, Near Ward-1, Adarsh High School, Hisar Hisar Pan: Bitpm5341N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Karishma Rathore, Adv. Sh. Mayank Patawari, Adv. Department By Sh. Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069269047(1), Dated 30.09.2024 Involving Proceedings Under Section 154 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. For The Reasons Stated In The Assessee’S Condonation Averments, Delay Of 3 Days In Filing Of The Instant Appeal Is Condoned In Light Of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc). 3. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities’ Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 4. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only.

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Patna vs. Yashi Films Private Limited, Patna

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

ITA 462/PAT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 194JSection 250

filed its return of income electronically on 16.02.2022 vide acknowledgement No.221365310160222 declaring total income of ₹2,24,92,710/-. The case was selected for Complete Scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for the reason "Large payments made under the section 194J to persons who have not filed return

Madhav Education Trust, Mehsana vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1, Exmp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2159/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2018-19

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

Year:2018-19 2 10B (audit report) was not filed within the due date. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was taken up for complete scrutiny wherein the claim for deduction u/s 11 and 12 of the Act was again denied. The assessee had carried the matter in first appeal

Devendrakumar Ghevarchand Jain, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1725/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia & Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 271ASection 68

return was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and subsequently the case was selected for complete scrutiny on the ground that the assessee had entered into transactions with a company whose registration had been cancelled by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, namely