“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

Aurangabad Steel Corporation, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(5), Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 2054/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vishwajit Shinde

Section 143(3)Section 250

partnership firm and declared income of ₹3,25,560 in the e-return for A.Y. 2017-18 furnished on 31.10.2017. The return selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for the reason that “low income from TCS receipts-scrap” and is duly assessed under VAT Act and quarterly sales figures have

Axa Parenterals Limited, Up vs. Assessment Unit, Delhi

ITA 5040/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270Section 37Section 37(1)

demand of Rs. 3,69,860/- was raised. The case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues: -  Large sales promotion expenses vis-is gross receipts  Huge loss from currency fluctuations 3. After close scrutiny of return of income and computation of income

J R Modi Associates Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Civic Center

In the result, the addition made by the AO is confirmed

ITA 2685/DEL/2023[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year 2016-17 Jr Modi Associates Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 22 Lower Ground Floor, Siri Income Tax, Circle 13(1), Fort Road, New Delhi Delhi: 1100 49 Pan No. Aaacj2950M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Priyansh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

assessee company electronically on 09.09.2016, which was later revised on 15.09.2016 declaring total income of Rs.50,56,404/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 18.07.2017 was issued. Notice under Section 142(1) I.T. Act along with detailed questionnaire

Hitesh Popatlal Oswal, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 12, Pune

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

ITA 861/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Krishna V GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

assessee filed his return of income on 24.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.15,87,120/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues : (i) Unsecured Loans and (ii) Business Expenses. Accordingly, statutory notice

Adarsha Souharda Sahakari Niyamit Sirsi, Sirsi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Huballi

ITA 1165/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Prakash Hegde, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

facts and circumstances of the case by passing the impugned Order ignoring the fact that one of the reasons for initiating the Complete Scrutiny by the learned Assessing Officer was 'Deduction from Total Income under Chapter VI-A' and the latter has thoroughly examined all the necessary information and documents

Ladderup Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7404/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarladderup Finance Circle 14(1)(1), Limited Mumbai 1St Floor Hallmark Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Business Plaza, Mumbai-400 020 Gurunanak Hospital Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl0882G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rushabh Mehta Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026

Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

specific reference to para 3 of the said Instruction, it was submitted that the Board has clearly demarcated the distinction between “Limited Scrutiny” and “Complete Scrutiny” cases and has placed express restrictions on the scope of enquiry in cases selected for limited scrutiny. Placing reliance on the above Instruction ... reference in the assessment order to any written approval of the Pr. CIT/CIT for conversion of the case from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny, and therefore the additions made by the Assessing Officer on issues beyond the limited 8 Ladderup Finance Limited scrutiny reasons are without jurisdiction and liable

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3.3.1, Mumbai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Solar Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5135/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishasst. Cit, Circle 3.3.1 Shapoorji Pallonji Solar Holdings Room No. 522, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. 41/44, Sp. Centre Minoo Desai Mumbai-400 020 Marg, Colaba, Mumbai-400 005 Pan/Gir No. Aagcp 3195 E (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah & Ms. Mitali Parekh Respondent By : Shri Arun Kranti Datta – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Captioned Appeal By The Revenue Arises Out Of Order Dated 29.07.2024, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2021-22. 2. There Is Delay Of Four Days In Filing The Appeal. After Considering The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Was Due To Reasonable Cause. Hence, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication On Merits. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: (I) "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Both The Assessing Officers In Their Remand Report Have Not Given Adverse Findings Against The Assessee On The Issue Of Long Term Capital Loss Carried Forward, When In Fact Both Of Them Have Categoricaly Disagreed With The Submissions Made By The Assessee."

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kranti Datta – CIT DR

loss of Rs.171,28,11,497/- under the Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provisions. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny, primarily, to examine low profit ratio. 4. In course of assessment proceedings, from time to time, the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) called upon

Anshul Specialty Molecules Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7503/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaranshul Speciality Dcit Circle Molecules Private 1(1)(1), Mumbai Limited Vs. Aayakar Bhawani, Flexcel Park, „C‟ Wing, S.V. Mumbai-400 020 Road, Nr. 24 Karat Multiplex, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai- 400102 Pan/Gir No. Aabca4003H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri H. N. Motiwala, Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)

processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 20.12.2021, determining income at Rs. 19,60,54,970/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had, during the relevant previous year, acquired

ITO-22(1)(6), Mumbai vs. Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio- 001- A- Trust, Mumbai

ITA 4252/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 164Section 2(31)Section 250Section 61Section 63

also claimed credit of TDS of Rs. 1,39,587/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) and the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. 2.2 During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee was constituted as a trust by Asset Reconstruction

Gaurav Bhatia, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-70(5), Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5531/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18 Gaurav Bhatia, Vs. Ito, Ward 70(5), C-9, Western Colony, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 027 (Pan: Apspb5564K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. K. Sampath, Advocate Respondent By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 120Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

filed the return declaring total income of Rs. 2,73,320/- under the head ‘salary’ and ‘other sources’. The case was selected for Complete Scrutiny under CASS for the reason “Cash deposit during demonetization period”. Notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 24.9.2018 and served upon the assessee

Smt. Madhu Gupta, U.S.Nagar vs. Pr.CIT, Bareilly

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 136/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Prashant Kacker, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) at returned income of Rs. 7,24,450/-. The case of the Assessee was selected for Complete Scrutiny through CASS on the issue of cash deposit of during the demonetization period. An ex-parte order u/s 263 of the Act came

Vimal Alloys Private Limited, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab vs. Jao the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Patiala, Punjab

ITA 890/CHANDI/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Vipen Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

financial statements of the assessee are placed at pages 1 to 59 of the PB. 3. Further, the case of the assessee originallyselected for complete scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax, Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) and assessment order dated 30.10.2018 passed with an addition ... specify the category of the scrutiny selected under CASS (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) as to whether, it is a limited scrutiny, manual scrutiny or Complete Scrutiny Assessment. In the case of the assessee the instruction of CBDT referred above have not been followed, for which, we have taken an additional

Konatham Kotireddy, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Warangal

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1464/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: CA A VamseedharFor Respondent: MS P Sumitha, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271BSection 69A

only. The appellant relied on CBDT instruction No.5 of 2016 dated 14.07.2016. This instruction provides for the procedure for converting limited scrutiny case into complete scrutiny case with the approval of PCIT. Therefore, the validity of grounds taken by appellant that the AO has gone beyond the scope of limited ... scrutiny can be known from the assessment records i.e. whether case was converted into complete scrutiny or not before making the estimated addition of Rs.17,30,220/-Hence, the AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs.17,30,220/- if approval of PCIT is not taken for converting

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Penna Cement Industries Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1084/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sourabh Soparkar, Advocate Represented by Department : Dr. Narendra Kumar NFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 11/11/2025

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 68Section 80Section 801ASection 80GSection 92C

declaring an income of Rs. 228,62,62,070/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee company was selected for complete scrutiny under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019, for verifying multi-facet issues, viz. (i). disallowance under section 14A of the Act; (ii). allowability of the assessee's claim for deduction

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Penna Cement Industries Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1083/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Sood(Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1083/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Penna Cement Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcp2290D (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Industries आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1084/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hydeabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Penna Cement Industries Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcp2290D (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाताकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sourabh Soparkar, Advocate राजस्वकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाईसमाप्तहोनेकीतिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 11/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 2

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 68Section 80Section 801ASection 80GSection 92C

Sgd Pharma India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 477/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita-Tp Nos.130 & 447/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S. Sgd Pharma India Vs. Dy.Cit/I.T.O Private Limited, Ward/Circle 3 (1) Mahabubnagar Hyderabad Pan:Aadcc7815K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. K. Haritha, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. K. Haritha, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 43BSection 92C

income for Assessment Year 2017–18 on 30.11.2017, declaring a loss of Rs.2,21,78,327/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny, and accordingly, a notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. In view of the involvement of international transactions

Sgd Pharma India Private Limited, Mahabubnagar vs. DCIT, Circle -3 (1), Hyderabad

ITA 130/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita-Tp Nos.130 & 447/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S. Sgd Pharma India Vs. Dy.Cit/I.T.O Private Limited, Mahabubnagar Pan:Aadcc7815K (Appellant) Ward/Circle 3 (1) Hyderabad (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, Ca राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Smt. K. Haritha, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 21/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: Both These Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Sgd Pharma India Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Final Assessment Orders Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Read With Sections 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act") Dated 25.02.2022 & 27.07.2022 For A.Y 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“Ld. Drp”). Since Identical Issues Are Involved In These Two Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. K. Haritha, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 40A(7)Section 43BSection 92C

D.A.V. Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-2, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

ITA 1670/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

response to revised return of income. He vehemently argued that the reassessment made thereon is not maintainable when there is time to complete scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act by issuing a notice under section 143(2) of the Act in response to the revised return

D.A.V. Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-2, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15,

ITA 1669/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

D.A.V. Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-4, Chennai

ITA 1667/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Street, Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 4, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit 28.10.2025 21.01.2026 : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : आदेश/Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)