“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

Vizag Companys Steel, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 245/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 69A

that it is a limited scrutiny proceedings for examining “business loss”. In case, if the Ld. AO wants to take up the case for complete scrutiny, first the Ld. AO has to convert the limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny case and then he may take up the case for complete ... scrutiny with the prior approval of the Ld. Pr. CIT / CIT concerned after being satisfied about the issue of converting it into a complete scrutiny. In the instant case, we find that no such approval has been granted to the Ld. AO. We therefore find that

The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot vs. Smt. Kanchan Kiran Sorathiya, Anjar-Kutch

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 39/RJT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 159(2)(b)Section 159(3)Section 292BSection 69B

declaring total income at Rs.2,55,810/-. The case of the assessee i.e. Kirankumar Lalji Sorathiya was selected for scrutiny through CASS for complete scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 23.09.2019 which was served to the assessee. During the assessment

Shivalik Educational & Placement Services Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ACIT Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3207/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 36Section 68Section 69C

concerned, two type of cases have been selected for scrutiny in the current Financial Year- one is 'Limited Scrutiny' and other is 'Complete Scrutiny'. The assessees concerned have duly been intimated about their cases falling either in 'Limited Scrutiny' or 'Complete Scrutiny' through notices issued under section ... 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 Pr. CIT/CIT in writing after being satisfied about

Anju Ahuja, New Delhi vs. PCIT Circle 49(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 273/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kanwar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

prejudicial to the interest of revenue. On examination of the records, it is noticed that the case was selected under CASS for complete scrutiny with issue "Large Deduction/exemption claimed....". Further, the assessment proceedings in this case was completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 15.11.2019 and assessed

Volvo Information Technology Ab, Sweden vs. DCIT Int. Tax. Circle -3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA No

ITA 2780/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 194CSection 9(1)(vi)

Facts, in brief, are that the assessee company filed its return of income on 28.11.2015 declaring NIL income. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3)/144C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) vide order dated

Volvo Information Technology Ab, Sweden vs. DCIT, Intl. Taxation, Circle- 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA No

ITA 393/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 194CSection 9(1)(vi)

Om Raj Rajeshwari Jewellers, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 613/JPR/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of trading of gems & Jewellery. The case of the assessee was taken up for complete scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of manually selection for scrutiny. The assessment of the assessee was completed

Rudrax Shine Logistic Private Limited, Bundi vs. ITO Ward Bundi, Bundi

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

ITA 581/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 40Section 68

assessment year 2015-16 was e-filed on 31.03.2016 at total income of Rs. 4,02,730/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. Notice u/s 143(2) dated 16.08.2016 and notice u/s 142(1) dated 03.01.2017 were issued and duly served on the assessee. The assessment

Rukmani Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cir.-4 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

thereby declaring total income of Rs. 29,09,080/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for the complete scrutiny and accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 22.09.2018 by this office by fixing the case for hearing on 26.09.2018. Thereafter, to complete ... selecting the case for Scrutiny, in this notice also nowhere it has been stated that whether the case is selected for limited scrutiny and complete scrutiny, which was mandatory as per CBDT circulars. B. Notice U/s 142(1)issued on 05.10.2019. pgae 4-8 of Annexure

Telecrats India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 605/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(a)Section 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. 13.2 Meaning thereby, that exercise of power under sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act leading

Telecrats India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 574/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

Indiabullas Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai

ITA 821/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal &For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

returns were duly processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Further, the case of the Assessee was selected for complete scrutiny and accordingly the Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 26/07/2021, assessing total income of INR 2695,97,16,260/- after making ... returns were duly processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Further, the case of the Assessee was selected for complete scrutiny and accordingly the Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 30/09/2021, assessing total income of INR 3644,12,46,610/- under normal provisions

Gajesingh, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 64/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.64/Jodh/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

CASS system, on the basis of specific direction “cash deposit during the demonetisation period”. The ld. AO has no jurisdiction to make a complete scrutiny against the assessee. Therefore, the entire assessment was done within purview of the limited scrutiny. The ld. AR further invited our attention in copies ... order passed U/s 263. 5. The ld. DR vehemently argued and disputed that this scrutiny is not a limited scrutiny, it is a complete scrutiny. The ld. DR filed the written submission bearing No. ITO/Ward 1(92)/Ju/2023-24/183 dated 27/07/2023 invited our attention in RPB page 2 that

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Kandarp Tradelinks and Services Private Limited, Vki, Jaipur

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

ITA 561/JPR/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 250(5)Section 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. DCIT vs. Kandarp Tradelinks and Services Pvt Ltd 13.2 Meaning thereby, that exercise of power under sub-section

DCIT Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb Jaipur vs. Kandarp Tradelinks and Services Private Limited, V K I Jaipur

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

ITA 560/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 250(5)Section 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. DCIT vs. Kandarp Tradelinks and Services Pvt Ltd 13.2 Meaning thereby, that exercise of power under sub-section

Sm Workforce Private Limited, Bhiwadi vs. ITO, Ward, Bhiwadi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 426/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143Section 154Section 2Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

Shree Krishna Builders, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result appeal of the assessee M/s Shree Krishna Colonisers in ITA

ITA 96/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 95/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Colonisers V Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 0, Nemichand Gali, Ganj Para Ward S Pcit, Raipur-I No.5, Ram Sagar Para, Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Pan: Abffs7335G (Ita No. 96/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Builders Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 5/425, Nemichand Gali, Ramsagar Para Pcit, Raipur-I Ward, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aacft1716A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14.12.2023 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 133Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 69C

premises of concerns of the assessee on 27.01.2017. Later on, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS under the category complete scrutiny. Statutory notices were issued and served on the assessee. In response to the notices, the assessee had submitted replies which were duly considered

Shree Krishna Colonisers, Raipur vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result appeal of the assessee M/s Shree Krishna Colonisers in ITA

ITA 95/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 133Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 69C

Mahapalika Kshetra Madhyamik Shikshak Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3072/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemahapalika Kshetra Madhyamik V. Ito – Ward – 22(2)(1) Shikshk Sahakari Pat Sanstha Piramal Chambers Maryadit (Cooperative Credit Society) Mumbai - 400012 201/202 Anish Tower Senapati Bapat Marg Matunga (W), Mumbai Pan: Aaaam1865G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Smit Sheth Shri Satya Prakash Singh Department Represented By :

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2020-2021 on 13.02.2021 declaring NIL total income. Subsequently the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notices under section 143(3) and 142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) were issued along with questionnaire ... complete scrutiny assessment was selected specifically on the following issues. S.No. Issues i. Investments /Advances / Loans ii. Deduction from Total income under Chapter VI-A iii. High Creditors / Liabilities iv. High Interest expenditure / finance costs v. Investments / Advances / Loans 3. In response, Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted the relevant

Litecon Industries Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 220/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.220/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Litecon Industries Pvt. Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Surat, 1, 123, 1St Floor, Aaykar Block No.255, Navi Pardi, B/H Vs. Kamrej Sugar, Joy N Joy Road, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395002 Kamrej, Surat-394150 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcl 8007 A अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""थ" / Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 194(7)Section 263Section 40

assessee furnished revised return of income, declaring total income at Rs.1,17,02,490/- on 14.12.2018. Subsequently, the assessee`s case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment, under e-assessment Scheme, 2019, for verification of genuineness of expenses and ICDS compliance and adjustment. The assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s