“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

Central Academy Jodhpur Education Society, Jodhpur vs. Circle(Exemp.), Jaipur

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

ITA 543/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 164(2)Section 2

under section 11. The same was processed under section 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. E-notice under section 143(2) of the IT Act was issued by the AO on 09.08.2018 which was duly e-served

Ashok Parnami, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 5, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 524/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

which was processed under section 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and accordingly statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 18.09.2017 which was duly served on the assessee through ITBA portal. Notice under section

Supreme Buildestates Pvt Ltd, Madanganj- Kishangarh vs. DCIT Circle 2 Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 495/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) a

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2Section 234BSection 37Section 80Section 80G

declaring total income at Rs. 22,43,54,110/- and income u/s 115JB of Rs. 24,45,44,184/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme on the issue “1. As per new schedule AL-1, the company has invested substantial part ... return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the case was subsequently selected for Complete Scrutiny. While assessing the case under consideration, the AO has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80G to the tune of Rs. 17,16,540/- and issued order

Kmtc (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

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

ITA 2254/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Kmtc (India) Private Limited Cit(A) 2202, 22Nd Floor, Indiabulls Finance Mumbai -400 020 Centre, Tower 3, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Elphinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aafck 2156 D (Appellant) (Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar Revenue By : Shri P. D. Chougule Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2023 : 27.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 35D

total income at Rs.59,36,377/- and the same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and assessment order dated 2.11.2016 was passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act where the ld. Assessing Officer ('A.O.' for short) determined

Vasani Enterprises, Thane vs. ACIT Circle 2, Kalyan

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

ITA 2113/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. Shriram Bajaj.ARFor Respondent: Shri G.V. Ninawe, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 40Section 43B

2114/Mum/2023 Vasani Enterprises, Mumbai. and the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected for complete scrutiny under the CASS and notice u/sec 143(2) and U/sec 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire are issued. In compliance

Royal Sales & Co., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 559/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.559/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Royal Sales & Co., Income Tax Officer, 504, Arihant Park, Parle Vs. Ward- 1(3)(1), Surat, Aaykar Point, Surat–395007 Bhawan, Near Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaofr2757F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

Assessee is engaged in the business of trading of sarees, grey and fabrics. The case of the assessee was selected for the purpose of complete scrutiny to verify the reason of low profit before Interest and Tax (PBIT) shown by the assessee. 4. In order to verify the details submitted ... reproduced as under: “In connection with the assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2015-16, it is stated that your case has been selected for complete scrutiny. On verification of submission filed by you on 23.11.2017 and after reconciling the information received u/s.133(6) of the Act during the course

Rajesh Jain, Tikamgarh vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax Gwalior, Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 48/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajesh Jain, The Pcit, Gwalior, Prop. M/S Gyan Tube Wells, Aayakar Bhavan City Centre Mau Chungi Road, Vs. Gwalior, M.P.472001. Tikamgarh-472001. Pan No. Aoqoj 4456 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Abhijeet Shrivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Saad Kidwani, CIT-DR

Section 263

consideration on 27.10.2017, declaring income of Rs.7,78,500/ declaring income of Rs.7,78,500/-, was selected for was selected for Rajesh Jain 3 complete scrutiny assessment for examining abnormal increase in complete scrutiny assessment for examining abnormal increase in complete scrutiny assessment for examining abnormal increase in cash deposit

M/S Hardayal Singh Patel, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 189/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 189/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Hardayal Singh Patel 43, Golden Homes, Vip Estate, Khamardih (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aabfh5997A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 ……""यथ" / Respondent

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43B

before us: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of the assessee were accepted by the Ld. AO during the complete scrutiny assessment proceedings conducted under CASS 2019, after application of his independent mind. The Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in invoking the provisions

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir.-3, Surat vs. M/S Charu Jewels, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 74/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.74/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Vs. M/S Charu Jewels, Central Circle-3, 5/983, Charushila Jadakhadi, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfc8298F (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Date Of Hearing 08/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2023

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

said return of income was processed by the Department u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny, under Manual Criteria. The statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has been issued on 29.09.2018 and duly served upon the assessee

Touchstone Service Pvt. Ltd., Rajnandgaon vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 69/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.69/Rpr/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Touchstone Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mangal Deep, G.E. Road, Raipur-1. Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aacct6932F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashis Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

this year were examined by the A.O from respective books of accounts of the assessee. 3. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny to examine the issue pertaining to “large amount of squared up loans during the year, cash deposits during demonetisation period and higher turnover reported ... Page 2 of the assessment order for the A.Y.2017-18 wherein Ld. A.O has categorically mentioned that case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny on 8 certain issues and during the course of the proceedings, the assessee was specifically asked to explain the above issues and to file relevant

Abis Export India Pvt. Ltd., Rajnandgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 194/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 194/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Abis Export India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ib, Corporate House, Indamara, Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aacca2881J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Bikram Jain, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am: The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Dated 28.03.2023 For A.Y.2018-19. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax—Raipur-1 Has Erred In Holding The Assessment Order Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre (Neac) On 01.03.2021 As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue As The Order Was Passed Without Making Any Enquiry On The Issues Of Applicability Of Section 14A Of The I. T. Act, 1961. The Assessment Order Passed By The Neac Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Therefore The Order U/S 263 Passed By The Ld. Cit Is Unjustified, Unwarranted & Uncalled. 2. The Assessee Reserves The Right To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Grounds Of Appeal At Any Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 801ASection 80I

generating steam power and claimed deduction u/s.80IA (4)(iv) at the rate 25% on it. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny assessment on the following issues: i. Claim of Any Other Amount Allowable as Deduction in Schedule BP ii. Reduction of Income in Revised Return & Claim ... electronically on 31.03.2019 for A.Y. 2018-19 declaring total income at Rs. 143,24,43,070/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny and assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) by National e- assessment centre on 01.03.2021 by accepting the retuned income as assessed income

Gopal Sponge & Power Pvt. Ltd, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed, in terms of our observations here in above

ITA 226/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 226/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Gopal Sponge & Power Pvt. Ltd., Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Village- Siltara, Near Industrial Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur, (C.G.) Growth Centre, Phase- 2, Raipur, (C.G.) Pan: Aaccg1525F (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B. Subramanyam, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.K. Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17-10- 2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801A(4)(iv)

assessee on 08-08-2018 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,31,17,380/-. The case of the assessee was subsequently, selected for complete scrutiny through “CASS” u/s 143(3) and the assessment order was passed on 27.12.2019, accepting and assessing the total income of the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat vs. Hasmukhbhai Ravjibhai Ahir, Surat

In the result, the ground Nos

ITA 298/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.298/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Hearing) The Acit, Vs. Hasmukhbhai Ravjibhai Ahir, Central Circle-3, U/3, Amrutdhara Apartment, Ghod Dod Surat. Road, Opp. St. Xeviers School, Surat – 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abkpa5575D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Shri Ankur Shah, Ca Respondent By 08/08/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16/10/2023

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Income-Tax Act, dated 30.08.2018, was issued and duly served upon the assessee. The assessee`s case was selected under complete scrutiny with various flagged parameters. As per Instruction No. 01/2018, dated. ITA No.298/SRT/2023/AY.2017-18 Hasmukhbhai Ravjibhai Ahir 12.02.2018, assessment proceedings in cases selected for scrutiny would be conducted electronically

The Surat Peoples Co Operative Bank Ltd., Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.278/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) The Surat People’S Co Operative Vs. The Pcit, Bank Ltd., Surat-1 1, Vasundhara Bhavan, Timliawad, Nanpura, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2885P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 43B

total income at ITA No.278/SRT/2023/AY.2018-19 The Surat People’s Co-op. Bank Ltd. Rs.37,36,32,000/-. The assessee`s case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for various reasons alongwith the reason to verify the Refund of claim. The assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s ... Revenue took us through the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, which is reproduced below: “1. The case was selected for Complete Scrutiny assessment under the E- assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues:- S. No. Issues i. Claim of Any Other Amount Allowable as Deduction in Schedule

Preetiben Chhatrasingh Chauhan, Silvassa vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 238/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Preetiben Chhatrasingh Chauhan Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-Valsad, 301, 3Rd Floor, Income S.No.127/1, Preeti Industrial, Vs. Estate, 66 Kva Road, Amli, Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Shanti Silvassa-396 230 Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abnpc 6043 R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

Revenue relied on the findings of Ld. PCIT and stated the Assessing Officer has not converted ‘limited scrutiny’ into ‘complete scrutiny’ thus Assessing Officer has not applied his mind, therefore order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue, hence order passed

Divya Prakash, Bhojpur vs. Pr. CIT-1, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 24/PAT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 80C

this is the first year in this line of business. 6. On the other hand, ld. D.R. submitted that it is a case of complete scrutiny. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that purchase was made in cash and complete table has been reproduced

Ellora Inratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

Kindly refer to the subject mentioned above. 2. The case of M/s. Ellora Infratech Put. Ltd. for the A.Y.2013-14 has been selected for complete scrutiny under CASS on the following reasons: (i) Large increase of Unsecured Loans. The case was completed u/s. 143(3) of the IT. Act, 1961 dated ... Kindly refer to the subject mentioned above. 2. The case of M/s. Ellora Infratech Put. Ltd. for the A.Y.2013-14 has been selected for complete scrutiny under CASS on the following reasons: (i) Large increase of Unsecured Loans. The case was completed u/s. 143(3) of the IT. Act, 1961 dated

Smt. Soni Jha, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of my observations above

ITA 118/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 118/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Soni Jha 11, 557, Om Shanti Nagar, Pt. Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, Naya Talab, Gadhiyari, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Arcpj5940M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekass S. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N. C Roy, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Also, my attention was drawn by the Ld. AR to the instruction/guidelines dated 10.06.2021 issued by the CBDT for compulsory selection of returns for complete scrutiny during F.Y.2021-22 and framing of assessment in such cases, Page 65-67 of APB. Referring to the aforesaid instruction/guidelines, it was submitted ... abovementioned instruction/guideline dated 10.06.2021, which, for the sake of clarity, is culled out as under: 2. The parameters for compulsory selection of returns for Complete Scrutiny during Financial Year 2021-22 and conduct of assessment proceedings in such cases are prescribed as under: S. The Parameter Assessment proceedings

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Hem Bhattad, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2314/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Hem Bhattad, National Faceless Appeal 104, Bajaj Bhavan, Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaaah 2399 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit Circle-3(3)(1), Hem Bhattad, Room No. 609, Aayakar 104, Bajaj Bhavan, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Churchgate, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaaah 2399 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chogule, CIT-DR

Section 37Section 40

return of income filed by the assessee was on 31.10.2018. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny and statutory notices under the Act selected for complete scrutiny and statutory notices under the Act selected for complete scrutiny and statutory notices under the Act were

Hem Bhattad, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1934/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chogule, CIT-DR

Section 37Section 40