← 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

Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 34, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1412/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1411 & 1412/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Income Tax, Circle -34, 15, Strand Road Kolkata - 700001 Kolkata [Pan : Aaajk0361L] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. M. Sundaram, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : Both These Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre - Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 27/10/2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 & Dt. 06/11/2023 For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19:- “1. Disallowance Of Rs.68,13,600 U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D(2)(Ii) Is Liable To Be Deleted For The Following Reasons Since The Undisputedly The Appellant Had Nil Exempt Income & That The Entire Investments Are Made In Port Related Strategic Entities Out Of Its Own Funds. A) As Duly Mentioned In Paragraph No.8.7 Of The Impugned Order, The Issue Of Whether The Explanation To Section 14A Inserted W.E.F. 01.04.2022 Is Prospective Or Retrospective Is Not Settled & Hon'Ble High Court Of Delhi Has Held It To Be Applicable Prospectively, Namely W.E.F. Ay 2022-23, Which Subsequent To The Subject Ay 2018-19. 2

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Sundaram, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 14ASection 250Section 41(1)

assessee which is a Government of India undertaking filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2020-21 on 30/03/2021. Case selected for complete scrutiny followed by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. 4 I.T.A. No. 1411 & 1412/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Syama

Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 34, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1411/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1411 & 1412/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Income Tax, Circle -34, 15, Strand Road Kolkata - 700001 Kolkata [Pan : Aaajk0361L] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. M. Sundaram, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : Both These Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre - Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 27/10/2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 & Dt. 06/11/2023 For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19:- “1. Disallowance Of Rs.68,13,600 U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D(2)(Ii) Is Liable To Be Deleted For The Following Reasons Since The Undisputedly The Appellant Had Nil Exempt Income & That The Entire Investments Are Made In Port Related Strategic Entities Out Of Its Own Funds. A) As Duly Mentioned In Paragraph No.8.7 Of The Impugned Order, The Issue Of Whether The Explanation To Section 14A Inserted W.E.F. 01.04.2022 Is Prospective Or Retrospective Is Not Settled & Hon'Ble High Court Of Delhi Has Held It To Be Applicable Prospectively, Namely W.E.F. Ay 2022-23, Which Subsequent To The Subject Ay 2018-19. 2

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Sundaram, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 14ASection 250Section 41(1)

assessee which is a Government of India undertaking filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2020-21 on 30/03/2021. Case selected for complete scrutiny followed by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. 4 I.T.A. No. 1411 & 1412/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Syama

Radha Diamonds, Erode vs. ITO, Circle-1, Erode

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

ITA 729/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.729/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Radha Diamonds, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 371, Nethaji Road, Circle 1, Erode. Erode 638 001, Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aaifr0066K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Coimbatore-1, Coimbatore, Dated 23.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961[“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

assessment year 2017-18 on 25.10.2017 declaring a total income of ₹.94,03,291/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny to verify the cash deposits during demonetization. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 21.08.2018 and the same

Tikkavarapu Venkatram Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 1841/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1836 To 1838/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Vinayak Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ravi Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Abapt1371Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1839 To 1841/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Venkata Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ram Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aawpt6892M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate B Shanti Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By Both Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.09.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Advocate B Shanti KumarFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

Oath, as per the statutory guidelines. Hence, the statements given by the persons reflect the truth and only truth. 9.2 The assessee, during the complete scrutiny proceedings, merely claiming that he has not received any cash from M/s South Indian Educational Society. But the department has evidence, in the form

Tikkavarapu Venkatram Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 1840/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1836 To 1838/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Vinayak Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ravi Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Abapt1371Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1839 To 1841/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Venkata Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ram Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aawpt6892M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate B Shanti Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By Both Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.09.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Advocate B Shanti KumarFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

Oath, as per the statutory guidelines. Hence, the statements given by the persons reflect the truth and only truth. 9.2 The assessee, during the complete scrutiny proceedings, merely claiming that he has not received any cash from M/s South Indian Educational Society. But the department has evidence, in the form

Tikkavarapu Venkatram Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 1839/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1836 To 1838/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Vinayak Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ravi Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Abapt1371Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1839 To 1841/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Venkata Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ram Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aawpt6892M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate B Shanti Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By Both Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.09.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Advocate B Shanti KumarFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

Oath, as per the statutory guidelines. Hence, the statements given by the persons reflect the truth and only truth. 9.2 The assessee, during the complete scrutiny proceedings, merely claiming that he has not received any cash from M/s South Indian Educational Society. But the department has evidence, in the form

Tikkavarapu Vinayak Ravi Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 1838/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1836 To 1838/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Vinayak Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ravi Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Abapt1371Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1839 To 1841/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Venkata Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ram Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aawpt6892M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate B Shanti Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By Both Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.09.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Advocate B Shanti KumarFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

Oath, as per the statutory guidelines. Hence, the statements given by the persons reflect the truth and only truth. 9.2 The assessee, during the complete scrutiny proceedings, merely claiming that he has not received any cash from M/s South Indian Educational Society. But the department has evidence, in the form

Tikkavarapu Vinayak Ravi Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 1836/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1836 To 1838/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Vinayak Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ravi Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Abapt1371Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1839 To 1841/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Venkata Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ram Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aawpt6892M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate B Shanti Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By Both Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.09.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Advocate B Shanti KumarFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

Oath, as per the statutory guidelines. Hence, the statements given by the persons reflect the truth and only truth. 9.2 The assessee, during the complete scrutiny proceedings, merely claiming that he has not received any cash from M/s South Indian Educational Society. But the department has evidence, in the form

Ascendas It Park (Chennai) Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT 1, Chennai

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

ITA 682/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 682/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ascendas It Park (Chennai) The Principal Commissioner Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, Pinnacle Building, 1St Floor, Range-1, International Tech Park, Chennai – 34. Csir Road, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. Pan: Aaeca 7979D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Revision Order Passed By The Principal Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2022-23/1051515676(1) Dated 28.03.2023. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 31.01.2021. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Pcit Passed U/S.263 Of The Act Revising The Assessment Framed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act Dated 31.01.2021. The Pcit Has Revised The Assessment In Regard To Following Two Issues:- (I) Loss On Sale Of Fixed Assets At Rs.11,02,001/- (Ii) Provision For Doubtful Debts At Rs.31,46,538/-

For Appellant: Ms.Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

revenue through lease of developed area to enterprises engaged in Information Technology & Information Technology enabled services sector. The assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under e-assessment scheme 2019 on the following issues:- i. Claim of any other amount allowable as deduction in Schedule BP ii. Deduction