“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

M/S. Fatima Builders & Developers, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1886/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Somaiya

Section 143(3)Section 43C

declaring „Nil‟ income. The case of the Appellant was selected ITA. No. 1886/Mum/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 for limited scrutiny which was converted into complete scrutiny after obtaining necessary approvals. During the assessment proceedings the Appellant took a stand that the project was not complete and since the Appellant

Sri. Pavan Kandkur, Hubballi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubballi

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

ITA 522/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Pavan Kandkur Vs Principle Commissioner Of Cts No. 3046, Hirepeth Nagar Income Tax Near Akkikonda Aayakar Bhavan Hubballi 580020 Navanagar Pan – Anipk4256B Hubballi 580025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Balram R. Rao, Adv. Revenue By: Ms. Neera Malmotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/11/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit, Hubali Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 23.03.2022 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Conditions 1. Precedent Being Absent The Proceedings-Initiated U/S.263 Of The Act Was Opposed To Law & The Order Passed U/S.263 Is Liable To Be Cancelled. On The Facts There Being No Error Much Less An Error Prejudicial To The 2. Interest Of Revenue, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ought To Have Refrained From Invoking The Provisions Of Sec.263 Of The Act. The Learned Commissioner Ought To Have Considered The Submissions 3. Made By The Appellant & Ought Not To Have Invoked The Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malmotra, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 5(3)Section 8

filed the return of income for AY 2017-18 on 05.11.2017 declaring a total income of Rs.1,46,760/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for and especially verifying the cash deposits during the demonetization period. Notice under Section 143(2) of the 3 Shri Pavan Kandkur

Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 611/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan

Section 14ASection 250Section 37

learned assessing officer with respect to not taking the approval from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for conversion of limited scrutiny case to complete scrutiny case. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order

Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1228/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan

Section 14ASection 250Section 37

Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4229/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan

Section 14ASection 250Section 37

Keystone Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3004/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan

Section 14ASection 250Section 37

New Carrying Corporation, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-12(1)I/C, Chennai

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

ITA 229/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 229/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri. M. Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40Section 4o

income for the assessment year 2015-16 on 28.09.2015, declaring a total income of Rs. 8,05,410/-. The case has been selected for complete scrutiny on various issues and the assessment has been completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Janata Traders, Gadag vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 401/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Girija, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

deals in wholesale business of pulses and foodgrains and filed its return declaring an income of Rs.9,98,120/-. The case was selected for Complete Scrutiny under CASS to verify the cash deposited during the demonetization period. Assessment u/s 143(3) was completed at the income at Rs.10

ACIT-Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. D A Finvest P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1296/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhacit, Circle-15(1)(2) Vs. M/S D.A. Finvest Pvt. Room No. 483, 4 Th Floor, Ltd., 65, Mahavir Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Sector 17, Dbc, M.K. Road, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 400 075 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcd0420B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Mahita Nair Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am):

For Appellant: Smt. Mahita NairFor Respondent: None

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

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 ... merits of the ITA No.1296/Mum/2021 AY. 2015-16 4 ACIT, Circle-15(1)(2) Vs. M/s D.A. Finvest Pvt Ltd. issues(s) necessitating Complete Scrutiny in that particular case. Such cases shall be monitored by the Range Head concerned. 5.1.5 The perusal of the assessment records reveals that before taking

Essilor India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 448/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 448/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Essilor India Pvt. Ltd., 10Th Floor, Prestige The Deputy Trade Tower, Commissioner Of 46, Palace Road, Income Tax, High Grounds Circle – 2(1)(1), Sampangi Rama Bangalore. Vs. Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan: Aaace4623J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 31/03/2022 Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 92Section 92C

448/Bang/2022 2.2 The assessee filed its return of income on 01/12/2017 declaring total income of Rs.33,10,52,119/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) was issued along with notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act. 2.3 During the year under consideration, the assessee

M.N.Rangamani, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward-2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 21/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.21/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri M.N. Rangamani, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 94, First Avenue, Defence Officers Corporate Ward 2(1), Colony, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aaepr5701M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M.N.Rangamani, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. T.M. Sugunthamala, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai Dated 14.02.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Only Issue Involved In This Appeal Relates To Confirmation Of Disallowance Of ₹.37,15,836/- Under Section 14A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri M.N.Rangamani, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. T.M. Sugunthamala, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

filed his return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 on 30.09.2015 with returned income of ₹3,710/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny and a notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 18.07.2016 was served on the assessee. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) r.w.s

Smt, Ramu Annamalai Umaiyal Radhai, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 922/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 922/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 Smt. Ramu Annamalai Umaiyal Radhai, The Principal Commissioner Of Flat No. Iii, 3Rd Floor, Poojapura Vs. Income Tax- Chennai I, Apartments, St. Mary’S Road, Chennai. Alwarpet, Chennai 600 028. [Pan:Aakpu6790M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V.P. Kuriachan, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai - I, Chennai, Dated 20.05.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Kuriachan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

which the Assessing Officer himself could not look as the 12 I.T.A. No.922/Chny/20 Assessing Officer has selected the case for limited scrutiny and not complete scrutiny before concluding the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act. Under the above facts and circumstances, the revision order passed under section

M/S. Keva Construction Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT -15(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 758/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Saurabh Bhat, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr. DR

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

case are that the assessee had filed return of income declaring loss of Rs. 2,34,74,111/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under the CASS. The assessee company is engaged in the business of investment segment and carries on investment in shares securities and other portfolio investments

Reinforce Buildcon Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 3(3), Thane

In the result, Ground No.2 raised by assessee is fully allowed

ITA 2385/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalreinforce Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 303/B, Darul Aman Co-Op.Hsg. Society Ltd. Kausar Baug, Amrutnagar, Mumbra, Thane-400612. Pan: Aafcr6762C ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-3(3), Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Road No.16Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-400064. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. D.M. Shah, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Ashish Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. D.M. Shah, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee company e-filed its return of income on 28.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 2, 28,000/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS for verification of excess contribution to provident fund or superannuation fund. Notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act (for short

Charoen Pokphand Seeds India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2, Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 509/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Charoen Pokphand Seeds India The Principal Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1021/1, Service Income Tax, Road, Gitanjali Layout, Bengaluru – 2, Hal Iii Stage, Vs. Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 075. Pan: Aaccc3259N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri C. Ramesh, Ca : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order U/S. 263 Dated 15.03.2022 Passed By The Ld.Pr.Cit, Bengaluru – 2, Bengaluru For Assessment Year 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Appellant Objects To The Revision Order Passed U/S. 263 On The Following Grounds In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The As It Is Opposed To Law & Circumstances Of The Case: - Originally The Appellant Has Taken Only One Ground Relating To Deduction U/S.35(2Ab). The Following Grounds Were Not Taken By Oversight. Hence The Appellant Is Filing Revised Grounds Of Appeal As Mentioned Below.

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CA

Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

claiming agricultural income of Rs.14,50,17,783/- and deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of Rs.7,52,26,133/-. The case was selected for a complete scrutiny under CASS. Page 3 of 12 2.2 The assessment was completed under section 143 (3) of the Act on 23/12/2019. In the assessment order

Shree Aniruddha Upasana Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 706/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shree Aniruddha Upasana Cit (Exemption), Foundation, 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hills Flat No. 702, Link Apartment, Vs. Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Tps Iii, Khari Village, Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Khar (West), Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400052. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaics 9217 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Snehal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2022

For Appellant: Snehal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR

Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

procedure laid down red to procedure laid down for converting a lim for converting a limited scrutiny case to complete ited scrutiny case to complete scrutiny case mentioned in clause clause 2 to 6 of said Instruction. The Ld. Ld. counsel also referred to letter of DG Vigilance dated 30/11/2017 ... Foundation 11 following the procedure for converting a limited following the procedure for converting a limited scrutiny case into a scrutiny case into a complete scrutiny case (PB:52 scrutiny case (PB:52-51). 7.2 The Ld. counsel submitted that the counsel submitted that

Surplus Finvest P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-11, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1971/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, Advocate, a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam, CIT - DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 253(3)Section 263

learned PCIT vide impugned order dated 05/03/2020, passed under section 263 of the Act, held that despite selection of assessee’s case for complete scrutiny, the Assessing Officer failed to make verification/investigation in respect of the transaction in shares of M/s Sulabha Engineering by the assessee. Accordingly, vide impugned order

Nxp India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 264/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

assessee filed its return of income for AY 2016-17 on 28.11.2016 declaring income of Rs.24,37,05,200. The case was selected for complete scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act served on the assessee. The case was referred to the Transfer Page

Span Intermediates Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No.3 of the assessee is allowed subject to submission of certified documents mentioned above

ITA 1917/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalspan Intermediates Pvt. Ltd. 6Th Floor, Jash Chambers, Mustafa Building, Sir Phiroz Shah Mehta Road, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Aabcs6103Q ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3)(1) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Sanjiv M. Shah Respondent By : Sh. Pramod Nikalje Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Nfac’] Dated 26.08.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjiv M. ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Pramod Nikalje

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 244ASection 250Section 28Section 36(1)(iv)Section 438Section 43B

declaring income at Rs. Nil under the normal provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961. The case was selected for complete scrutiny, assessment under the e-assessment scheme, 2019 on the following issues: (i) Excess Contribution to Provident Fund, Superannuation Fund or Gratuity Fund. We are reproducing the order

M/S. Eta Star Infopark, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

ITA 248/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

sought the approval of the then Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Bengaluru (PCIT-1) to convert the limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny for disallowing the general & establishment expenses claimed as deduction by the appellant in the Return. 2.8 The learned Pr.CIT-1, after examining the records of the appellant ... appellant had neither carried out any business activities and nor earned any income from business, accorded his approval to convert the assessment proceedings into complete scrutiny, for disallowing the general & administrative expenses claimed by the appellant as a deduction in the return. 2.9 On verification of the details furnished