“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

Gillette India Limited, Spa-65A, Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, District- Alwar vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 313/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. ParwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194Section 195Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

Perusal of the record also shows that one of the main reasons for selection of the case for complete scrutiny was "large outwards remittances by the assessee and to check as to whether appropriate 9 Gillette India Ltd vs. PCIT provisions of withdrawal have been complied with." This was basically ... cartridges and other personal grooming products. It filed its return declaring total income of Rs.3,96,12,05,160/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny inter-alia to examine the international and domestic transaction, deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A and admissibility of the expenses claimed. 17 Gillette India

A3Logics (India) Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur -1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 190/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40a

filed his return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 14.09.2018 showing taxable income of Rs.1,85,52,940/- The case was selected for complete scrutiny where under, various notices were issued which were duly replied by the assessee time to time. However, feeling satisfied, the AO vide the subjected

Humuza Consultants, Mumbai vs. The CIT (A), Nface Inc Tx Dept, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2193/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 115BSection 115OSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 15BSection 68

short, ‘the CIT(A)’) dated 12/06/2023 for A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee raised grounds pertaining to the following issues:- i. Converting limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny- Grounds No.1 to 5) ii. Non admission of additional grounds by CIT(A) – Grounds No.6 to15) 2 ITA 2193/Mum/2023 Humuza Consultants iii. Treatment

Jai International, Udaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 23/JODH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: The Date Of Hearing. 4. That The Hon’Ble Pcit Has Not Given Any Specific Instance About Rejecting The Details Submitted By Us In Response To Their Query. 5. That The Hon’Ble Pcit Has Not Given Any Specific Reason/Speaking Order Contradicting Case Laws Submitted By Us. The Hon’Ble Pcit Only Says That The Facts Are Different.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (S.C.);CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del). Further The asseesee’s case was also under complete scrutiny for AY 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 and no additions were made during those years which itself proves the genuineness of creditors ... also squared off/payment made in next financial year for which ledger copies were attached. You will appreciate the fact that, assessee case was under complete scrutiny for AY 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 and no additions were made during those years which itself proves the genuineness

Shri Hemrajsinh Kiransinh Rathod, Dadra & Nagar Haveli vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 239/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.239/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Hearing) Hemrajsinh Kiransinh Rathod, Vs. The Pcit, Krishna Petroleum, Iocl Dealer, Valsad Near Jalaram Temple, Waghdhara Road, Village Dadra - 396193, Ut Of Dadra & Nagar Haveli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aihpr4957N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 14/08/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2023

Section 143(3)Section 263

issue mentioned therein. If the AO of the view that there is a potential escapement of income, he may convert, the "Limited Scrutiny" into "Complete Scrutiny" but such view should be reasonable view based on credible information or material available on record. Furthermore, there should be direct nexus between such

Manish Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.192/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Manish Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit -1, Gantiwala Compound, Near A S Surat Motors, A. K. Road, Surat - 395008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm6018Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri S. M. Keshkamat, Cit(Dr) 13/09/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 801Section 80I

income for assessment year (A.Y.) 2018-19 on 25/09/2018, declaring total income at Rs.15,69,53,860/-. The assessee`s case was selected for Complete Scrutiny under E- Assessrnent Scheme 2019, to verify the issues of (i) Duty Drawback and (ii) Deduction Claimed for industrial Undertaking under section 80IA / 80IAB

Raremat Mall Management Co.Pvt.Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Office, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 121/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Raremat Mall Management Co. Vs. The Pcit – 1, Pvt. Ltd., Surat. Ground Floor, Rahul Raj Mall, Gaurav Path, Dumas Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafcr8865G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 20/07/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2023

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 40Section 40A(3)

income for assessment year (AY) 2017-18, on 07.11.2017, declaring returned loss of Rs.2,73,097/-. The assessee`s case was selected for complete scrutiny and the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, was completed on 25/12/2019, determining total assessed income of Rs.34,91,960/-, by making

M/S. Maheshwari Logistics Private Limited, Vapi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 377/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.377/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Maheshwari Logistics Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad, Room No.301, 3Rd Floor, Shed No.A2-3/2 Mll House, Vs. Opp. Upl, 1St Phase, Gidc, Income Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali Vapi, Valsad-396195 Hill, Santi Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad- 396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm 8332 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 on 16.10.2018, declaring total income at Rs.13,64,72,520/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny and the assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) on 11.02.2021 by accepting the returned income of the assessee-company. 3. Later on, Learned ... accepting the returned income. In this case the main issue which was to be verified by the Assessing Officer (under complete scrutiny and as per Instruction No.9/2007, Dt. 11.09.2007 issued by CBDT. New Delhi), that depreciation details must be verified. In the present case the assessee has purchased fixed asset

National Stock Exchange of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 732/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalnational Stock Exchange Of India Limited Exchange Plaza, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aaacn1797L ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit Circle-7(1)(1) R. No. 126, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Church Gate Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir Mistri, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Sribivasu, Ld. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250

vide dated: 29.06.2021 vide Page No. 88 of the factual Paper Book it was clearly mentioned that “Since it is a complete scrutiny, further queries may arise during the course of assessment proceedings”. Still, no query on this issue was ever raised during the assessment proceedings;  Order

Pfizer Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 14(2) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2132/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT

Section 32Section 35D

Assessee revised it on 30/11/2015 declaring a total income of Rs.1,939,382,340/–. Ld AO picked up ROI for complete scrutiny. 06. During the course of assessment proceedings, the learned assessing Officer made following three additions [3] to the total income of the assessee. i. The learned assessing officer

ACIT - 14(2) (2), Mumbai vs. Pfizer Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2108/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT

Section 32Section 35D

ITO Ward - 29(4), New Delhi vs. Ritesh Singh, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5360/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 Ito Ward-29(4) Vs. Ritesh Singh, New Delhi. Hr-77/4, Pul Pehladpur, New Delhi -110 044 Pan Bhjps9443L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Department By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21. 09.2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144

filed his return for AY 2014-15 electronically on 03.12.2014 declaring income of Rs. 7,17,470/-. His case was selected under CASS for complete scrutiny. Statutory notice under section 143(2) issued on 30.09.2015 fixing the hearing for 08.10.2015 sent through speed post and e-mail also was responded

Vapi Green Enviro Limited, Vapi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, various grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 387/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Vapi Green Enviro Limited, Pr.C.I.T., Valsad. 135, 1St Floor, Via House, G.I.D.C. 301, 3Rd Floor, Palak Vs. Char Rasta, Vapi, Gujarat, Arcade, Shanti Nagar, India-396195. Tithal Road, Pan: Aaacv 8289 P Valsad-396001. Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 254(1)Section 263

regular provisions and took profit of Rs. 3,07,12,494/- under Section 115JB of the Act. The case of assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under e-assessment scheme with regard to ‘refund claim’ and ‘ICDS compliance and adjustment’. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order under section

Kanav Metals, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 50(1), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7778/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Her During The Course Of Appeal Proceedings.

Section 2(31)Section 244

year under consideration, the assessee shown to have derived income from wholesale business of scrap. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny, during the course of the assessment proceedings it was noticed from the balance-sheet of the Assessee Firm that an addition

Cae Simulation Training P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes subject to the direction contained in para 9 above

ITA 2573/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: S/Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

assessee filed its return declaring income of Rs. 15,03,98,960/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. Statutory notices were issued to the assessee in response to which the assessee filed necessary details online through ITBA, which are placed on record

Dinesh India Company, Surat vs. Assistnat Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(2), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 381/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Dinesh India Company, A.C.I.T., 5019, World Trade Centre, Ring Circle-1(2), Vs. Road, Surat-395001. Surat. Pan No. Aajfd 9144 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 10ASection 254(1)

computation of total income, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 10AA of the Act of Rs. 7.61 crores. The case was selected for complete scrutiny. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that the partner of assessee firm has not claimed interest on capital contribution and remuneration to its partners

Vikas Sharma, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhilai, Durg

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

ITA 255/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 255/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Vikas Sharma Quarter No.6-A, Ruabandha Sector, Bhilai, Dist. Durg-490 006 Pan : Ddcps1720P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Sidharth Parakh &For Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

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

issued notice u/s 143(2) after the stipulated time period. 3) That CIT(A) has erred in confirming action of the AO in conducting complete scrutiny assessment without converting "Limited Scrutiny Assessment" to "Complete Scrutiny Assessment" in the manner as prescribed by hon'ble CBDT. 4) That

Sabita Agrawal, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur

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

ITA 110/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.110/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Sabita Agrawal Pcit 237, Behind Gayatri Mandir Sambalpur Samta Colony, Raipur – 492 001 Odisha – 768 004

For Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 29.09.2018 disclosing the total income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently, the case of assessee was selected for ‘complete’ scrutiny on the issue of “Income from Forest Produce” and assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Sections ... alleging that the AO had not made without enquiry or verification. The third contention raised was pertaining to limited scrutiny viz a viz complete scrutiny, Ld AR submitted that the Ld PCIT was wrong in assuming the jurisdiction u/s 263 on an issue which was not specified in the notice

Ramakrishna Agencies, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 31/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam13 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 30 & 31/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Ramakrishna Agencies, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-1(1), Pan: Aajfr 3436 Q Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(10)Section 271B

return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 30/10/2017 declaring a total income of Rs. 9,70,540/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for the reason that ‘large turnover shown in ITR but Audit Report (Form 3CD) was not filed’. The Ld. Assessing Officer passed

Ramakrishna Agencies, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 30/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam13 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(10)Section 271B