“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chiguruvada Dileep Kumar, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 143/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V

Section 10Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 80CSection 80E

reduced. The assessee declared loss under the head income from house property. Subsequently, the case was selected for a complete scrutiny for verification of the refund that disclosure of substantially lower receipts in the return vis-à-vis 26AS. On deduction from total Page 4 ITA Nos. 832/Bang/2023 & 143/Bang/2024 income ... applicable taxes. However, the appellant did not succeed in his honest attempt in revising the returns. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny to verify the return of income with the below queries:  Total Taxable Income of an employee  Reasons for Refund claim  Deduction from Total Income under Chapter

Chiguruvada Dileepkumar, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 832/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V

Section 10Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 80CSection 80E

Ashwini Kumar Taneja, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 46(3), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 7391/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Ashwini Kumar Taneja Vs. Ito, Ward-46(3), 586, Gandhi Cloth Market New Delhi Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi-110049 Pan : Adbpt3461A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

income of Rs. 13,85,460/- and the return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny on the grounds, whether loans and advances received are genuine and from disclosed sources, whether outward foreign remittance is from disclosed sources and appropriate

Sh. Baljit Singh, Ludhiana vs. Pr. CIT, Ludhiana -1, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 416/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Kaushal &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68Section 92C

06/11/2017, showing total income of Rs. 19,62,660/-; thus curing the mistake committed in filing original return. 3) The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. 4) Detailed questionnaire were issued by the Ld. AO. 10.3 The assessee duly replied all the queries so raised ... while carrying out the original assessment to have dealt with such a broad issue elaborately particularly so when case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. Hence Ld. PCIT is right in holding that detailed and deep enquiries were required to be made. 19.1 We have perused the judgment

Honda R & D (India) P.Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1733/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2018-19 Honda R & D (India) Vs. Acit, Circle-10(1) P. Ltd. New Delhi. Technical Centre, Plot No. 2, Sector-3, Imt Manesar, Gurgaon Haryana 122050 Pan Aabch3071N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 13Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

filed return of income on 26.11.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 5,99,49,450/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for complete scrutiny. The case was transferred to the Regional Assessment unit for completing the assessment under the faceless assessment scheme 2019 on 13.10.2020. The notice under

Panacea Boitec Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addi. CIT National Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 807/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2016-17 Panacea Boitec Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, G-3/B-1 Extension, National Assessment Mohan Coop. Indl Centre, Estate, Mathura Road New Delhi. New Delhi – 110044 Pan Aaacp5335J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 6Section 6(1)Section 92BSection 92C

adjustment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.11.2016 assessee e- filed the return of income. The case was selected for complete scrutiny and statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) dated 12.07.2017 was issued. Notices under section

Inductotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT - 1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 369/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2018-19 Inductotherm (India) Pvt.Ltd. The Principal Commissioner Of Sm-6, Road No.11, Sanand Ii Vs Income Tax-1, Industrial Estate, Bol Village, Ahmedabad Sanand, Ahmedabad – 382 170 (Gujarat) Pan: Aaaci 3672 B अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Ahmedabad-1, [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Pcit”] Dated 30/03/2023 In Exercise Of His Revisionary Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], Challenging The Initiation Of Proceedings Under Section 263 Of The Act For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged Order Raising The Following Grounds Before Us: 1. That On Facts & In Law, The Learned Pcit Has Grievously Erred In Exercising Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act. 2. That The Learned Pcit Has Grievously Erred In Law & On Facts, In Holding That The Ao Has Not Properly Examined The Issue Of Deduction Of Claim Of Excess Provision Of Inductotherm (India) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Pr.Cit-1 Asst.Year: 2-18-19

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

return of income for AY 2018-19 on 28.11.2018 declaring total income of Rs.1,00,21,30,580/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny and the assessment order u/s 143(3) read with sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act, 1961 was passed accepting returned income. 3.1. While

Ahlcon Parenterals (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, . CIT - 3, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 769/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Ahlcon Parenterals (India) Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit-3, Plot No.30/30-E, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi. 2Nd Floor, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi – 110 015. Pan: Aaaca1112C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan Vaid, Ca Revenue By : Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.03.2021 Passed By The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Delhi-3 (Hereinafter Referred As The Ld. Pcit) In Revision No.Pcit (Central), Delhi-3/Revision- 263/100000193785/2021 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Dcit, Central Circle-31, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. Heard & Perused The Record. At The Outset, The Ld.Ar Has Pointed Out That There Was A Delay In Filing The Appeal. The Ld. Ar Has Submitted That The Period Of Delay Stands Covered By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Directions In Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 Of 2020 Wherein Due To Covid-19 Pandemic, The Date Of Filing Of The Appeal Was Extended. The Ld. Dr Could Not Dispute This. Accordingly, The Application Is Allowed.

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Vaid, CAFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 32

points emerged: 3.1 There is an undisclosed TDS of Rs.4929.43 which has resulted into under assessment by Rs.4,29,493/-. The case was under complete Scrutiny and this was highlighted as one of the reasons but was not reconciled in assessment proceedings. 3.2 Purchases shown in ITR are less than

Sterling Greenwoods Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-4, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 342/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divetia & Shri Samir Vora, A.RsFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43C

relevant parameters which formed the basis for selecting the case for scrutiny. However, in revenue potential cases, it was further provided that 'Complete Scrutiny' could be conducted, if there was potential escapement of income above a prescribed monetary limit, subject to the approval of administrative Pr. CIT/CIT/Pr. DIT/DIT ... order to ensure that maximum objectivity is maintained in converting a case falling under 'Limited Scrutiny' into a 'Complete Scrutiny' case, the matter has been further examined and in partial modification to Para 3(d) of the earlier order dated 29.12.2015, Board hereby lays down that while proposing to take

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Nashik vs. Swa Ashokrao Bankar Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nashik

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 58/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 57Section 80(2)(d)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Rs.6,53,64,391/- u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The case was selected for complete scrutiny to verify: 1. Deduction from total income under Chapter VI-A 2. Investments/Loans/Advances 3. High Creditors/Liabilities 4. Accordingly, statutory notices

Rohtang Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 331/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69

assessment should not be framed u/s. 144 of the Act by best judgment assessment. The AO did convert the limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny thereby travelling beyond scope of limited scrutiny.Finally, the case was fixed on 21.11.2019. Thereafter, the AO completed the assessment ... referred to the instruction NO. 5/2016 of CBDT dated 14.07.2016 taking the bench through the procedure to be followed for conversion into complete scrutiny in a case which was originally earmarked for limited scrutiny. The ld AR contended that the AO was required to make a reasonable view that there

Mudur Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha Ltd., Udupi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Udupi

ITA 299/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh R. Uppin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 143(1)Section 18Section 2(24)(viia)Section 56Section 80GSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 8P(2)(d)

income on 09.11.2020 declaring total income of Rs.11,733. The return was processed u/s. 143(1). The case was selected for scrutiny under complete scrutiny. The AO issued statutory notices and the assessee uploaded details on ITBA. The AO noted that assessee has shown business income of Rs.35

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Larsen Toubro Kamgar Sahakari Patpedni Marydit, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4446/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 809(2)(d)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

return of income on 08/10/2018 declaring total income at Rs. Nil after claiming deduction of Rs.1,57,96,849/- u/s.80P. The case selected for complete scrutiny on the CASS system. The ld. AO noted that assessee has received loans and advances of Rs.80,56,06,553/- which caters

Rupmata Multistate Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Osmanabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Latur

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE

ITA 400/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 400/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Rupmata Multistate Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. 26/671, Rupmata Pride, Samarth Nagar, Dharashiv-413501 Pan: Aabar4836R . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pratik Sandbhor [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sourabh Nayak [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 246A(1)(a)Section 250Section 56Section 80P

income of ₹720/- after claiming a deduction of ₹32,41,914/- u/s 80P of the Act. The case of the assessee was subjected to complete scrutiny. In the event of assessee’s failure to adduce evidential material in support of its claim for 80P deduction against the interest income received/earned

Shivam Builders Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 317/AHD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 317/Ahd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16) िनधा"रण वष" Shivam Builders Private Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम Limited Income Tax Vs. 802, 8Th Floor, Rajvi Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad Arcade, Nr. Gurukul Drive In Road, Memnagar, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380052 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs0296D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Hem Chhajed, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri J L Bhatia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/04/2024 09/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 27.07.2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal:

For Respondent: Shri J L Bhatia, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

filed its return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 26.09.2015 declaring loss of Rs.3,29,55,888/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and accordingly notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) was issued by the DCIT

Kasaragod Rajashree, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Mangaluru

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

ITA 637/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Kasargod Rajashree, 14-3-296 Shenoy The Income Tax Compound, Officer, Kudumbi Garden, Ward – 2(1), Near Don Bosco Hall, Mangaluru. Vs. Mangalore – 575 001. Pan: Adjpr6811Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sriram V Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

impugned order by making an addition to total income of the appellant as he has completely failed to convert the "limited scrutiny proceedings" to "complete scrutiny proceedings" as laid down under law for the said conversion. Hence, the impugned assessment order is bad in law and is liable

Pooja Rohan Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is dismissed

ITA 130/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pooja Rohan Shah, The Pr. Cit-1 401 Samutkarsh Residency, Vs Ahmedabad 19, Shrinivas Society, Nr. Sukhipura, Paldi,Ahmedabad-380007 (Gujarat) Pan: Dxmps8666E

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee had filed her return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 declaring total income at Rs.8,18,770/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS with one of the reasons being "Suspicious sale transaction in shares and exempt long term capital gains shown in return (Penny Stock

Slo Steels Ltd, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 1641/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1641/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Slo Steels Ltd., V. Corporate Ward -6(3), No. 403, D T H Road, Chennai. Thiruvottiyur, Chennai – 600 019. [Pan: Aalcs-4523-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. J. Rajesh Samdaria, Fca : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri. J. Rajesh Samdaria, FCA

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

assessee has filed its return of income for :-2-: ITA. No: 1641/Chny/2023 the assessment year 2018-19 on 31.10.2018. The case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under E-assessment scheme and accordingly, notice was issued u/s. 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Rohit Bansal, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 45(7), Delhi

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

ITA 3239/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Sudhir Kumarrohit Bansal Vs. Income Tax Officer A-4/136, Paschim Vihar, Ward – 45(7) New Delhi-110 063 Delhi Pan No. Aoppb 5037 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pranshu Singhal, C.A. Revenue By Shri P. N. Barnwal, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.05.2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar:

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

Steel sheets and moulds. Assessee filed his return of income on 07.11.2017 declaring income of Rs.13,95,520/-. The case was selected for ‘Complete Scrutiny’ through CASS. The e-assessment proceedings were initiated by issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act through ITBA. On the basis

Vinay Grover, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 36(1), New Delhi

Adopted the sales amounting to Rs

ITA 3206/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2021-22]

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 234A

assessed at Rs.5,86,98,762/- as against the returned income of Rs.7,73,380/-. The AO noted that the case was selected for complete scrutiny for the following reasons:- "Assessee has made substantial purchases from such suppliers who are either Non-Filers) or have filed non-business