“complete scrutiny”

Income Tax Officer-17(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idbi Staff Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleito – 17(2)(1), Vs. Idbi Staff Co-Op 1St Floor, Room No. 115, Credit Society Ltd., Kautilya Bhavan G Block, 1St Floor, Idbi Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400005. Mumbai -400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aaaai0083Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Ujjawal Kumar.Dr Respondent By : Mr. Mandar Vaidya .Ar Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

after claiming deduction of Rs.4,78,74,030/- u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected for complete scrutiny under E-assessment scheme 2019 to verify (i)Investments, Advances and loans(ii) IDBI Staff Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Mumbai. Expenses incurred for earning exempt income

Mr. Punet Bhatia, Delhi vs. Pr.Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result order passed u/s 263 of the act by the learned principal Commissioner of income tax, dated

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Pr. Commissioner Of Income Mr. Puneet Bhatia Tax, C/O Sharma Goel & Co. Llp, Room No. 501, 5Th Floor, A–47, Lower Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Vs. Hauz Khas, New Delhi, Karve Road, Delhi–110016 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaapb1298H Assessee By : Mr. Ajay Wadhwa, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanjay V. Deshmukh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2022

challenging the powers of the AO by the appellant during the assessment proceedings does not automatically coverts limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny. 3.4 That the Hon'ble PCIT has erred in law in holding that order passed by the Ld. AO is in ignorance of the provisions ... duty-bound to look into only that information and nothing more. He submitted that the case of the assessee was never selected for complete scrutiny and that is not the case of the learned PCIT also. He submitted that in several judicial precedents of the coordinate benches it has been

Nava Samaj Mandal, Mumbai vs. National -E Assessment Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blenava Samaj Mandal V. National E-Assessment Centre Delhi -110001 Dixit Cross Road, N-1, Vile Parle (E) Mumbai - 400057 Pan: Aabtn9649P

return was processed u/s. 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) on 02.10.2019. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS with reason of “large receipts from other income”. Accordingly, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. 3. During

Alia Premedia Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 14 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

that assessee filed its return of income at a loss of Rs 4, 21, 47,185/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) was issued and duly served upon the assessee. 4. The assessee company is principally engaged ... difference of Rs 37,466,959/- has been transferred to capital reserve account. 8. As the case was selected under the category of complete scrutiny, and there is no allegation emanating from the order of AO and ld CIT (A) about any sort of non-cooperation or non furnishing

Radhakrishna Devanna Nayak, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleradhakrishna Devanna Vs. Nfac, New Delhi Nayak, 249, Matrupriti, Hingwala Lane, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-400077. Pan/Gir No. : Aaapn4093Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri R.P. Veena.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y.2018-19 disclosing a total income of Rs.29,56,880/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny Assesseement under the E assessment scheme 2019 on the issues of excess contribution to provident fund, superannuation fund or gratuity fund. Whereas the assessee

M/S Dtps Employees Co-Op Credit Limited Dahanu, Palghar vs. Pr Commissioner of Income Ta -1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us:-

does not stretch the scope of his examination beyond that, except with the prior approval of ld. PCIT by converting the limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny as mandated in the CBDT instructions. Hence the ld. AO could not have examined the issue of applicability, if any, of provisions of section

Pranay Godha, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 5(2), Mumbai

In the result we are in agreement with a finding of Ld

assessee/appellant filed his e-return on 05-08-2016, declaring total income at Rs 2,41,24,870/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. 3. During the year under consideration assessee sold 3,13,270 shares of M/s. Kaygee Loparex India Pvt Ltd (KLIPL) and received

Masroor Hussain Masood Ahmed Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 27 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemasood Khalil Ahmed V. Income Tax Officer – 27(2)(2) 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6 Room No. 467, Khan Manzil Vashi Railway Station Complex Nss Road Hill No.2 Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400703 Hill No.2, Ghatkopar (W) Mumbai – 400086 Pan: Actpa9100A (Appellant) (Respondent) Masroor Hussain Masood Ahmed Shaikh V. Income Tax Officer – 27(2)(2) Room No. 46, Khan Manzil 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6 Vashi Railway Station Complex Nss Road Hill No.2, Mumbai – 400086 Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400703 Pan: Acdph0227P

6681/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) Masood Khalil Ahmed & Other 4. The assessee's case was converted by the Assessing Officer from limited to complete scrutiny with the approval of the PCIT-27, Mumbai vide letter dated 04.12.2017 to examine the source of credit appearing in the Bank account of the assessee ... assessee in its financial statements, the assessee could not substantiate the same before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the assessment was converted into complete scrutiny and Assessing Officer made the independent enquiry with Union Bank of India, Kurla Branch, Mumbai and with various clearing and forwarding Agents. Accordingly, he collected

Masood Khalil Ahmed, Mumbai vs. ITO 27 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemasood Khalil Ahmed V. Income Tax Officer – 27(2)(2) 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6 Room No. 467, Khan Manzil Vashi Railway Station Complex Nss Road Hill No.2 Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400703 Hill No.2, Ghatkopar (W) Mumbai – 400086 Pan: Actpa9100A (Appellant) (Respondent) Masroor Hussain Masood Ahmed Shaikh V. Income Tax Officer – 27(2)(2) Room No. 46, Khan Manzil 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6 Vashi Railway Station Complex Nss Road Hill No.2, Mumbai – 400086 Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400703 Pan: Acdph0227P

6681/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) Masood Khalil Ahmed & Other 4. The assessee's case was converted by the Assessing Officer from limited to complete scrutiny with the approval of the PCIT-27, Mumbai vide letter dated 04.12.2017 to examine the source of credit appearing in the Bank account of the assessee ... assessee in its financial statements, the assessee could not substantiate the same before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the assessment was converted into complete scrutiny and Assessing Officer made the independent enquiry with Union Bank of India, Kurla Branch, Mumbai and with various clearing and forwarding Agents. Accordingly, he collected

Kabir Tripat Oberoi, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -20, Mumbai

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

looked into any other aspect of the issue, without seeking prior permission of the ld. PCIT / CCIT by converting the limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny. Hence, when the ld.AO has carried out his work in accordance with the norm specified by CBDT in the instant case, the ld. PCIT cannot ... find merits in the contentions of the assessee that the said limited scrutiny can not be expanded unless the AO converted it into complete scrutiny with the approval of Ld. Pr. CIT and if the AO after considering the submissions of the assessee does not come to the conclusion

Kapil Tripat Oberoi, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -20, Mumbai

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

looked into any other aspect of the issue, without seeking prior permission of the ld. PCIT / CCIT by converting the limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny. Hence, when the ld.AO has carried out his work in accordance with the norm specified by CBDT in the instant case, the ld. PCIT cannot ... find merits in the contentions of the assessee that the said limited scrutiny can not be expanded unless the AO converted it into complete scrutiny with the approval of Ld. Pr. CIT and if the AO after considering the submissions of the assessee does not come to the conclusion

;Marie Gold Realtors P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-CC-8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

return was processed u/s.143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). Subsequently return was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. In response assessee filed various details on e-Filing portal. During the assessment

Marie Gold Realtors P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-CC-8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

return was processed u/s.143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). Subsequently return was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. In response assessee filed various details on e-Filing portal. During the assessment

Sambhavnath Infrabuild and Farms Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir7(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Sambhavnath Infrabuild & Farms Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Circle 7(3) Successor To Bellissimo Realtors Room No. 655, 6 Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., 412, Floor–4, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 17G Vardhman Chamber, Cawasji Mk Road, Patel Road, Mumbai-400 020 Horniman Circle, Fort Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalcs 1394 M

before the assessing officer. Therefore, there are no two views that when the assessment proceedings are going on, whether Under the limited scrutiny or complete scrutiny, if assessee makes a fresh claim without filing revised return, such claim cannot be entertained by the ld AO. This has been made abundantly ... made by way of a revised return. There cannot be any distinction with respect to the fresh claim made during the course of either complete scrutiny or limited scrutiny, these are merely the risk parameters set up by the central board of direct taxes for scrutinizing the returns

M/S. Bombay Fluid Systems Components Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax -5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

which was processed it u/s 143(1) of the Act; and later it was picked-up for scrutiny through CASS for complete scrutiny. The AO notes in the assessment order that the assessee company is engaged in the business of distribution/sale of products of M/s. Swagelok company USA in Western

M/S. Sap Holdings & Leasing Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Circle-8(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Sap Holdings & Leasing Pvt. Ltd. The Acit, Circle 8(1)(2) 53, Datta Bhavan, V.M. Lane, Room No.625, Gokhale Road (North), Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Vs. Dadar (West), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 028 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aafcs 7429 B Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jani, Ar Revenue By : Shri S. Anbuselvam, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2022

30th October, 2017 at a total income of ₹38,70,170/-. There were 12 notices issued by the learned Assessing Officer in the complete scrutiny of the above wherein assessee failed to submit the requisite details and accordingly, the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed