“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

Kgk Homes, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jaipur

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

ITA 223/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

facts of the case as emerges from the assessment order dated 15-03- 2021 are that the case of the assessee was selected for Complete Scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme on the following issues:- 1. Income from Real Estate Business. 2. Unsecured Loans It is noted that ... filed its original return of income on 29-09- 2018 declaring total income at Rs.87,79,510/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 22-09-2019 and e-mailed to the assessee. Further, notice u/s 142(1) with detailed questionnaire

Tab India Granites Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jaipur

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

ITA 136/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 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

Dhabriya Polywood Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 122/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani,CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

called Limited Scrutiny 15 DHABRIYA POLYWOOD LIMITED VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 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

Sangir Plastics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 1062/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

assessee was taken up for scrutiny subsequently. In the assessment order it is mentioned that the return of income was taken up for complete scrutiny in order to examine the issues relating to (a) Duty Drawback and (b) ICDS Compliance and Adjustment. It appears that the AO was satisfied with ... adjustment. However, on a perusal of the assessment order, we notice that the AO has observed as under:- “The case was selected for Complete Scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues:-” Thus, we notice that the return of income has been selected for Complete scrutiny

Sangir Plastics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1061/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

Jai Club, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeis allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 229/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Naman Kumar Jain(C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

income on 15.10.2016 declaring a total income of Rs. Nil and show loss of (-) Rs. 2,39,90,206/-. The case was selected under complete scrutiny through CASS. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 03.07.2017 which was duly served upon the assessee. The ld. AO completed assessment proceedings

Omm Shree Realcon Pvt. Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. Pr.CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 97/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.418, Forest Park, 8, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabco 3118 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 28 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 /0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 68

notice issued u/s.142(1) and query No.5 in e questionnaire thereon, which reads as follows: ANNEXURE Sir your company's case is selected for complete scrutiny through CASS for following Reasons BE12.O4: lnflow of funds in an entity consistently showing loss before Depreciation IN01.04: Large investment in property (Form 26QB ... persons who have given the assessee unsecured loans were called for as follows: ANNEXURE Sir your company’s case is selected for complete scrutiny through CASS for following reasons: BE 12.04: Inflow of funds in an entity consistency showing loss before depreciation. IN01.04: Large investment in property (Form 26QB

Sanjay Kumar Jain, Jaipur vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result,the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 44/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt.MonishaChourdhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 3Section 44A

return of income on 17.10.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 16,08,350/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS under complete scrutiny’ and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and duly served upon the assessee. Further, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act annexing

M/S Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., E-8, Epip Riico Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 260/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 30Section 44

return of income on 28.09.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 5,33,11,66,150/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny proceedings. In the original assessment proceedings, the AO vide notice dated 23.09.2019 issued u/s 143(2) of IT Act required the assessee to explain

Chandra Shekhar Tiwari, Flat No. B-9, D-224, Tanwar Residency, Tulsi Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 101/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

Mohammedaltaf Abdulkadar Memon, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1) and DCIT, CPC, Surat

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

ITA 151/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Mohammedaltaf Abdulkadar Memon, I.T.O. 4/4478 Taiyabi Street, Ward- 2(2)(1), Vs. Zampa Bazar, Surat & Dcit, Cpc Surat-395003. Bangalore) Pan: Ahzpm 3224 E Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 254(1)Section 44A

depreciation which has been wrongly disallowed by the C.P.C. The disallowance of depreciation could only be made by selecting the return of income for complete scrutiny. 7. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported the orders of C.P.C. as well

M/S Rudra Developers, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir- 1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 132/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254(1)

assessee submits that if any adjustment/disallowance was to be made it has to be made only after selecting the return of income for complete scrutiny. The ld. AR of the assessee invited our attention on order of CPC wherein it is shown income of assessee from business or profession

M/S Rudra Developers, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir- 1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 131/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254(1)

Calibehr Business Support Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst Director of Income Tax, CPC/ Asst Comm of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalor

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

ITA 257/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Agnes P. Thomas, DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 43

source and iv. disallowance u/s 43(B) of ₹ 4,76,564/-. 06. After the intimation the return of assessee was picked up for complete scrutiny assessment under the E assessment scheme 2019 on six different issues. Namely, ITA No.3227/MUM/2022, 257,256/MUM/2023 A.Y.2018-19, 19-20 & 20-21 CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES

Calibehr Business Support Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst Director of Income Tax, CPC/ Asst Comm of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalor

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

ITA 256/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Agnes P. Thomas, DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 43

Calibehr Business Support Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, National E-Assessement Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

ITA 3227/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Agnes P. Thomas, DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 43

Murtuja Husainbhai Hirani, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Navsari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 196/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Murtuja Hussainbhai Hirani, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3, Prop. Of R. K. Bullion, Navsari Shop No.5, Pranav Chamber Madhumati, Navsari – 396445, Gujarat. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aciph3680D Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 09/06/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

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

Income Tax Act, accepting the income declared in the return of income. Later on, assessee`s case was selected for complete scrutiny in CASS System of Scrutiny, and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 03.09.2015 and duly served upon the assessee. Thereafter, notice

Sachin Notified Area, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat - 1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 343/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.343/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Sachin Notified Area, Vs. The Pcit, Surat-1 Plot No.5719, Unnati Building, Sachin Gidc, Sachin, Surat-394230. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaals0146H Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Appellant By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 31/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

Section 143(3)Section 263

claiming deduction of Rs.13,08,46,528 u/s 10(20) of Income Tax Act. The Sachin Notified Area assessee`s case was selected for Complete Scrutiny under CASS and scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. was completed on 21.12.2019, determining total income at Rs.13

Shree Jyotirling Sahakari Patsanstha Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-27, Mumbai

ITA 1356/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: Shri Sushant AlmeFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

deduction under Section 80P(2)((a)(i) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the Appellant was selected under e-Assessment Scheme – 2019 for complete scrutiny assessment for the reason ‘Deduction from Total Income under Chapter VI-A. Vide order dated 01/02/2021, passed under Section

Kirat Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1628/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Department by: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 155JSection 68Section 69

paid on deemed income u/s 155JB of the Act of Rs. 4,45,868/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS on the reason that “an unsecured loans from persons who have not filed their return of income (Form 3CD)”. The assessment order came