“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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur vs. Mukesh Kumar Soni, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 656/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani (FCA)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148A

copy of return of income is available on paper book page No…1. The return was selected for complete scrutiny on the ground of verification of transactions as is mentioned in the assessment order. The original assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the income

Associated Soapstone Distributing Co Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Jaipur

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

ITA 243/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37Section 43B

income, at a total income of Rs. 13,51,08,500, on 24.11.2018. Subsequently, the case of the assessee company was selected for complete scrutiny by issuance of notice, dated 22.09.2019, under Section 143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, order, dated 17.03.2021, was passed by the Id. AO/National

Vinay Bhartia, Kanpur vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(5), Kanpur

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

ITA 352/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vinay Bhartia, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 55/58, Kahoo Kothi, Ward 1(1)(5), Naya Ganj, Aayakar Bhawan, 16/69, Kanpur-208001 Civil Lines, Pan: Achpb 6554B Kanpur-208001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P.K. Kapoor, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 26/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/02/2024

Section 115Section 143Section 143(2)Section 68

return declaring total income of Rs.5,18,390/- was filed for the captioned year. The case was selected under CASS for carrying out complete scrutiny and, thereafter, statutory notices were issued from time to time requiring I.T.A. No.352/Lkw/2023 2 the assessee to furnish various details and documents. It was selected

Jaiprakash Choudhary, Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 310/AHD/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)

beyond the reasons for scrutiny selection and such cases are called Limited Scrutiny cases and only the remaining returns are taken up for complete scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act. I.T.A Nos. 310 /Ahd/2022 & Ors. A.Y. 2020-21 & Ors. Page No 10 Jai Prakash Choudhary vs. ADIT

Jai Prakash Choudhary, Vadodara vs. The ADIT CPC, Bengluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 312/AHD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)

Jai Prakash Choudhary, Vadodara vs. The ADIT CPC, Bengluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 311/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)

Aditya Birla Private Equity Trust, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (Income Tax Officer 20(1)(1), Mumbai)

Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry, Hon'Bleand

Section 1Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

from Venture Capital Undertaking. | 37,84,72,668 | _10(23FB) Total 47,76,75,319 4. The case of the assessee was selected under complete scrutiny through CASS and assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) on 30.12.2018 after due enquiry and accepting the returned income

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai vs. Palchin Real Estate Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2553/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivram & Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose t. Kottaram (CIT

Section 14ASection 270A

declaring total loss of 2 A.Y. 2018-19 M/s. Palchin Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Rs.46,50,30,928/-. Later, the return was selected for complete scrutiny. And the AO noted that the assessee has debited less expenditure in its P & L Account for earning exempt income (when compared

Diversey India Hygiene Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

Accordingly, the ground raised by the appellant is allowed

ITA 1243/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234CSection 250Section 80G

Year 2017-18 on 29/11/2017 declaring total income of INR 1,15,71,62,610/-. Subsequently, the case of the Assessee was selected for complete scrutiny. The regular scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act was completed vide assessment order, dated ITA No.1243

M/S Dollar Biscuits Company Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT(OSD), Corporate Range1, Chenai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 794/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.794/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Dollar Biscuits Company The Asst. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax (Osd), No.16A, New No.20, Corporate Range-1, Rajarathnam Street, Kilpauk, Chennai. Chennai – 600 010. [Pan: Aaacd-3180-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.K. Rangasamy, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2024 : 28.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Rangasamy, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

income for the AY 2015-16 on 30-09-2015 admitting a total income of Rs.19,58,170/- and the case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. The statutory notice under section 143(2) dated 01-08- 2016 served upon the assessee. Statutory notice u/s 142(1) also served

Mrs. Parvati Bandi, Iikal vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Koppal

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

ITA 1150/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Sathish Patil, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel V, JCIT (DR)

Section 68Section 69

case are that the assessee filed return of income on 30/03/2022 declaring a total income at Rs.91,30,240/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny. The AO issued various notices on different dates. The assessee filed submission and written synopsis which was considered by the AO and AO made

Superior Agro Crops Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, CC-6, New Delhi

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

ITA 1613/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 68

income at Rs. 15,85,22,200/- and the case of the Page 3 of 8 Superior Agrocrops Pvt. Ltd. assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. An assessment order came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by making addition

Shivam Industries, Delhi vs. ACIT, CC-6, Delhi

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

ITA 1612/DEL/2021[2017-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2017-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

that, the return was filed u/s 139(1) declaring income at Rs. 84,77,110/- and the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. An assessment order came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by making addition

Bajaj Housing Finance Limited, Pune vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 564/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.564/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Bajaj Housing Finance Limited, The Principal 3Rd Floor, Panchsil Tech Park, V Commissioner Of Income Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014. S Tax-3, Pune. Pan: Aadcb6018P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala & Ms.Vasanti B.Patel – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Passed By Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-3 On 14.03.2023. In This Case, Assessment Order Was Passed On 26.02.2021. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. Ground I: Challenging The Validity Of Revision Proceedings Under Section 263 Of The Act 1.1. The Learned Pcit Failed To Appreciate That The Assessment Order Passed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune (Hereinafter Referred To As Learned Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Bajaj Housing Finance Limited [A]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

declaring total income of Rs.37,01,62,310/-, which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny to examine the issues of Claim of any other amount allowable as deduction in Schedule BP, Refund claim, Expenses incurred for earning exempt income ... viia) of the Act. Submission of ld.AR : 3. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) of the assessee submitted that assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, the AO had called for the details of standard assets. Assessee had submitted all the details to the AO. The ld.AR

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata vs. Britannia Industries Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 888/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.888/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ………. Appellant Circle-7(1), Kolkata. Vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. (Pan: Aabcb2066P) …………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit (Dr) Appeared For Appellant Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca Appeared For Respondent . Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 19.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.02.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2018-19 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Nfac, Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 24.03.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3) Read With Sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act By Ao, Income Tax Department, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi Dated 22.03.2021. 2. There Is A Delay Of 93 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal. An Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed By The Revenue Which Is Placed On Record. After Perusal Of The Same, We Notice That I.T.A. No. 888/Kol/2023 A Y: 2018-19, Britannia Industries Ltd. Though The Impugned Order Was Passed On 24.03.2023 But The Same Was Received In The Office Of The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata On 04.08.2023 To This Effect A Certificate Is Filed By The Revenue Authorities. Considering This To Be Reasonable Cause & In The Larger Interest Of Justice, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35

rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is a Limited Company engaged in the manufacturing business and complete scrutiny assessment proceedings carried out and/or framed on 22.03.2021. Two of the issues which are in dispute before us relate to disallowance of weighted deduction

Ropar District Co-Operative Union Limited, Mohali vs. PCIT, Chandigar-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 360/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AAKASH DEEPJAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 24Section 263Section 269USection 53A

return filed by the assessee was processed by the CPC, determining its income at Rs.11,24,08,940/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny regarding the issue of ICDS Compliance and Adjustment. Vide order dated 19.02.2021, passed u/s 143(3) read with Section ... from house property and the deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act had been claimed, which had been allowed in all the years while completing scrutiny assessment; that for assessment year 2007-08 also, vide order dated 22.02.2011, the CIT(A) had allowed a similar claim of the assessee; that

R P Soonawala Family Trust, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-19(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3078/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआ.अ.सं.3078/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2018-19) R P Soonawala Family Trust 121, Khushnuma Chs, Carmicheal Stores, Pedder Road, Mumbai – 400026 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aadtr1540F बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 19(3), Room No. 206, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Parel, Mumbai – 400012

For Appellant: Shri Manish RankaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

that time limitation for filing revised return had already elapsed. Subsequently, the assessment of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny. In scrutiny assessment proceedings, the income offered to tax was accepted by the Department thus, no fresh additions were made. The assessee did not file any appeal against

DCIT Central Circle -2(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Viral Saraf Mittal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1843/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 2(2) V. Viral Saraf Mittal Room No. 806, 8Th Floor 901/902, Capri Heights Old Cgo Annex Building Palli Hill, Bandra (W) M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Azbps0317C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Sidharth Kothari Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 68

return of income was filed by the assessee on 26.11.2014 declaring total income of ₹.76,09,550/-. Subsequently the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and statutory notice u/s 143(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) was issued and served on the assessee. In response

Saic Motor Overseas Intelligent Mobility Technology Co . Ltd., Shanghai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Hsiidc Building

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

ITA 2194/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)

income on 28.05.2021 declaring NIL income and claimed refund of Rs. 18,79,80,560/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. Statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee which were duly complied with. During the AY 2020-21, the assessee entered into

Ozone Overseas P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Prcit-7, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1535/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: “1. That

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(x)

parties and perused the materials on record. It is evident from the record that the case of the assessee was originally selected for ‘Complete Scrutiny’ under the E- Assessment Scheme, 2019 on following issues:- (i) Investment/Advances/Loans (ii) Business Loss (iii) Expenses Incurred for Earning Exempt Income (iv) Share Capital/Other Capital