← 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

Rohini Gaurishankar Kalyani, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7, Pune

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

ITA 319/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 12ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 07.08.2020 by the CPC, Bengaluru accepting the returned income. Thereafter, the case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS and accordingly, statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. The assessee did not comply with

Sai Atharva Tradelink India Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. ITO-5(1), Bhopal

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

ITA 445/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisai Atharva Tradelink India Pvt. Ito-5(1) Ltd. Bhopal 301- Vijaystambh M.P. Nagar Vs. Zone-1 Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aavcs6826J Assessee By Shri A.K.Rinwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.05.2024

Section 142(1)Section 69A

return of income for the year under consideration on 24.10.2017 declaring total income at Rs.11,07,030/-. Case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny as per CASS for the reason of cash deposited during the demonetization period. The AO noted that during the year under consideration the assessee

Mp State Mining Corporation, Bhopal vs. PCIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 203/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Indore06 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimp State Mining Corporation Pr. Cit-1 Paryavas Bhavan Block No.1, Bhopal Area Hills Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcm0300K Assessee By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ars Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 30.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.05.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263

profit & loss account, Balance sheet along with all schedules are submitted before the AO. Since this year the case was selected for complete scrutiny, the learned AO verified all the expenses as claimed in the profit and loss account and framed the assessment. It is submitted that the assessee company

Quest Online, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-49(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1046/KOL/2023[2020-21`]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1046/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Quest Online…………………………………...............................……….……Appellant Block-A, 3Rd Floor, Room No.24, 1, Chandni Chowk Street, Princep Street, Kolkata – 700072. [Pan:Aaafq4820G] Vs. Ito, Ward-49(1),Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & Sunil Surana, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 03, 2024 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2020-21Against The Order Dated 08.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Only Issue Raised In The Various Grounds Of Appeals Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition By Cit(A) Of Rs.14,82,41,932/- As Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 68 Of The Act R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 09.01.2021 Declaring Total Income From Business & Profession At Rs.36,73,790/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices Were Duly Issued & Served Upon The Assessee. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Various Documents & Evidences Were Called For By The Assessing Officer From The Assessee

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

assessee filed return of income on 09.01.2021 declaring total income from business and profession at Rs.36,73,790/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices were duly issued and served upon the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the various documents and evidences were called

DCIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi vs. Surya Kiran Finance Corporation, New Delhi

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

ITA 974/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A)-30, New Delhi. Before him, the assessee has filed detailed submissions. After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) given substantial relief to the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs.1,57,42,260/- and sustained the addition of Rs.8,74,134/-.

Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69A

return of income for Asst. Year 2018-19 on 25/10/2019 declaring loss of Rs.4,07,81,078/-. The case was picked up for complete scrutiny under CASS. The reason for scrutiny selection were ‘High Ratio’ of refund to ‘TDS’ and “Large squared up loans during the year. Accordingly, notices

Siddhi Vinayak, Indore vs. ITO-3(1), Indore

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 260/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Siddhi Vinayak, Income-Tax Officer, 210, Dhan Trident, 3(1), Satya Sai Square, Indore. बनाम/ Vijay Nagar, Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Accfs1664A Assessee By Shri Arpit Gaur, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Final Hearing 22.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2024

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 44A

impugned assessment year 2015-16 on 25.09.2015, declaring a total income of Rs. 1,66,710/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS on various reasons, including low profit from large gross receipts. Total turnover of the firm for the year under consideration

Trimurty Colonizers and Builders Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Dr. S Seethalakshmii.T.A. No.53/Jpr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Income of Rs.5,52,160/- declared in the return of income for AY 2017-18 furnished on 30.10.2017. Subsequent to selection of case for complete scrutiny under CASS statutory notices were issued and duly served. One of the reasons for selection of scrutiny was large loan taken for loan repayment

R.A. Metals Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and impugned orders dated 28

ITA 2946/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2017-18 R.A. Metals Private Limited Vs. Ito, S.No.3, G/F-2120 Sona Bazar, Delhi. Bhagirath Palace, Delhi 110 006. Pan Aafcr1911H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 68

case are that assessee company e-filed its return of income on 25.09.2017 declaring income of Rs. 10.73,540/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. Notice under section 143 of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 08.08.2018 was issued. Notice under section 142(1) of Income

Samriddhi Progressive Pharma Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Income-Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 357/LKW/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Ys. 2018-19 Samriddhi Progressive E. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pharma Private Limited, National E-Assessment 2Nd Floor, T.S. Tower Ashok Marg Centre, Lucknow (U.P.) Delhi. Pan Aawcs 0681E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Vivek Dubey Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit( Dr) Date Of Hearing 03/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/ 04/2024 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 68

year under consideration, the assessee had earned income from profit and gains from business/profession of Rs.4,52,490/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under the E- Assessment Scheme, 2019 and statutory notices were issued requiring compliance by the assessee. However, since there was no compliance from the assessee

Mani Kishore Reddy Burgapally, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 170/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar(Through Virtual Mode) & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Mani Kishore Reddy Burgapally, Vs. The Acit, Circle – 5(1), Plot No.567, Road No.19, Hyderabad. Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 500033. Pan : Agnpb5055B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate. (Appeared Through Virtual Mode) Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, SR.AR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

filed his returns of income on 23/03/2022 declaring total income of Rs.14,93,830/-. The case of the assessee was selected for Complete Scrutiny under CASS on the issue “Large Cash deposits in Bank and Purchase of property”. The assessment was completed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (“learned

Tara Elctro Appliances Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 80/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Urjit B. Shah, Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)

year loss of Rs. 4,70,097/- and the book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act at Rs. nil. The case was selected for complete scrutiny and statutory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued to the assessee on 29-08- 2018. The reason for selection

Value First Digital Media Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-26(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3210/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 234B

scrutiny through CASS and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. Subsequently, the case was converted to complete scrutiny from limited scrutiny after obtaining proper approval. 7. The assessee is engaged in the business of providing messaging products and services and value added

Penupetruni Chinna Rao, Chennai vs. ITO, International Taxation, Ward-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 401/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.401/Chny/2022 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Mr. Penupatruni Chinna Rao Ito बनाम 8, Pughs Road, Sundaram Salai, International Taxation, / Vs. R.A. Puram, Chennai-600 028. Ward-1(1), Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aecpc-1481-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 04-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Lakshmi (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 50C(1)Section 54Section 54B

limited scrutiny to verify the large deduction claimed u/s 54B, 54C, 54D, 54G, 54GA of the Act without converting the assessment into a complete scrutiny. 1.3 The assessee seeks admission of additional evidences. The petition, in this regard, read as under: - The assessing officer completed the assessment in the case

Chetas Control Systems Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 139/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Pune23 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 133(6)Section 41Section 41(1)

that the assessee company filed its return of income on 13.02.2021 declaring total income of Rs.20,11,47,670/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS with reason “Taxability of business liability written off u/s 41 or any other section”. During the course of assessment 2 proceedings

Anoop Nopany, Kolata vs. ITO, Ward 40(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1381/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.1381/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anoop Nopany………………….…….…................…...……………....Appellant P-39, 2Nd Floor, Princep Street, Kolkata- 700072. [Pan: Abfpn3215L] Vs. Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata….....…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Narendra Kedia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 19, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 23, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.07.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(Appeal) Nfac, Failed To Notice That Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3)/263 Of The Act Is Bad In Law, Void Ab-Initio, Lacks Jurisdiction Since Original Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016 Passes U/S 143(3) Was Bad In Law, Void Ab Initio. & Consequentially Any

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

completing the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act failed to examine several issues despite the case being converted from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny. He, therefore, observed that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 30.12.2016 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue ... monetary limit shall be Rs. ten lakhs) requiring substantial verification on any other issue(s), then, the case may be taken up for ‘Complete Scrutiny’ with the approval of the Pr. CIT/CIT concerned. However, such an approval shall be accorded by the by the Pr. CIT/CIT in writing after being

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Starlight System (I) LLP, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2167/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, C.Circle-3(4), Vs. Starlight System (I) Roomno1915,19Th Floor, Llp, 5Th Floor Sunteck Air India Bldg, Centre 37-40, Nariman Point, Subhash Road, Mumbai-400021. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Acifs0005M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dr.Kishore Dhule.CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri.Gaurav Kabra.AR
Section 68

income of Rs.187,25,01,540/- and the return of income was processed u/sec143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues. (i) Income from real-estate business (ii) ICDS Compliance and Adjustment (iii) Unsecured Loans

Devki Nandan Maheshwari, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-47(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7239/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshdevki Nandan Maheshwari, Vs. Acit, 4546, Mahavir Bazar, Cloth Circle47(1), Market, Ff, Chandni, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Acqpj1188G Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Adv Shri V. Rajakumar, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vivek Upadhyay, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

Scrutiny‟ in the hands of the lender, still if the Assessing Officer had found anything alarming, he could have converted the Limited Scrutiny into Complete Scrutiny by seeking permission from the competent authority in the manner known to law. This was admittedly not done in the case of the lender

Abhudaya Co-Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT- 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3747/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2024AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 14A

filed its return of income on 16/08/2011 declaring total loss of Rs. (-) 373,32,38,952/-. The assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny and during the course of the proceedings ld. AO noted that the assessee company has shown investments, opening balance of Rs.5187

Ravindra Madhukar Kharche, Nagpur vs. ACIT Circle, Chandrapur

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 228/NAG/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Apr 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Virtually From Itat, Pune) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 228/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ravindra Madhukar Kharche, 602, Nilgiri Himalaya Empire, Phulmati Layout, Badikheda, Nagpur. Pan: Ackpk1961E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr Abay Marathe [Ld. DR’]
Section 10(10)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)

20Lakhs as against original claim of ₹10Lakhs. The said ITR was initially processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and later subjected to complete scrutiny by a notice served u/s 143(2) of the Act. 2.2 While framing assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, the Ld. AO made

Annavaram Kosuri -DCIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Rajendra Rameshchandra Chaturvedi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2889/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax- Vs. Rajendra Rameshchandra 19(3), Mumbai. Chaturvedi Premises No. 1, 2, 4Th Floor, (Appellant) Shreepati Arcade, Nana Chowk, Mumbai 400 036. Pan:Aczpc5041Q (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Mahita NairFor Respondent: Shri Suchek Anchaliya &
Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

Return of Income (RoI) for assessment year 2016-17 on 17.10.2016 declaring a total income of Rs.29,94,110/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) r.w.s. 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) was issued, to which