“complete scrutiny”

Shreerang Prakash Chikhalikar, Mumbai vs. ITO-1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhshreerang Prakash Vs. Ito – 1(3)(2) Chikhalikar,501, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Sugan, Cumballa Hill Bhavan, M.K.Road, Road, Grant Road, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400036. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acdpc3706G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Dm Shah.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Anoop Hiwase.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05.07.2022 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 Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

assessee appeared from time to time and submitted the details and the case was discussed. The limited scrutiny was converted into complete scrutiny to verify the possibility of escapement of income due to huge credits found in the assessee bank accounts. 3. The A.O. based on the information and details

Asstt. CIT-32(1), Mumbai vs. Sunitaben Shantilal Patel, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in terms of aforesaid findings

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalasst. Commissioner Of Income Tax-32(1), Room No. 702, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. ...... Appellant Vs. Sunitaben Shantilal Patel, 1903, Siddhivinayak Tower Chs Ltd. Link Road, Sudhendra Nagar, Dahisar (E), Mumbai-400068. Pan: Afhpp0267N ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Sh. Jigaar Mehta, Ar Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 13.08.2020 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Rejecting The Audited Books Of Accounts & Reducing The Turnover To Rs. 9,50,35,865/- Against Turnover Of Rs. 12,05,07,568/- As Disclosed In The Audited Books Of Accounts.” 2. “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Eliminating He Profits To 8% Of The Reduced Turnover Against Addition Of Rs. 8,49,87,993/- Made By The Ao.”

declaring total income of Rs. 56,48,200/- . The case was selected for limited scrutiny; subsequently case was converted from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny. Statutory notices under section 142(1) & 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) were issued. 3. During the course

Inventurus Knowledge Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai 6

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman आअसं.246/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2016-17) Inventurus Knowledge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 801, Mindspace Business Park Pvt. Ltd., Building No.5 & 6, Thane Belapur Road, Airoli East, Navi Mumbai – 400 708. Pan: Aabci-5573-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Pcit,Mumbai -6 Circle 15(1)(2) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri S.C.Tiwari, Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Jayant Jhaveri सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 09/03/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

return of income for the impugned Assessment Year declaring loss of (-) Rs.2,74,,34,536/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. The assessee is engaged in 5 providing IT enabled services with its units located in SEZ at Mumbai and Hyderabad

M/S. Gold Star Fine Jewellery LLP, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Assessing Officer passed the order dated 22/12/2018 under section 143 (3) of the Act, observing as under: “2. The case was selected for „Complete Scrutiny‟ under the category “CASS”. Subsequently, notice u/s 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 04.07.2017 was issued and duly served on the assessee ... filed any submission in reply to the notices issued. Though, the return filed by the assessee was selected for „Complete Scrutiny‟ under the Category “CASS”, however, there is no discussion on examination/verification conducted by the Assessing Officer on the issues highlighted by the learned PCIT in the assessment order. There

Lokmanya PAN Bazarassociation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT -8, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1206/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

nature of the assessee‟s income. The Ld. Pr. CIT relied on the Instruction No. 5/2016 of CBDT for conversion of limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny if the case warrants for the relevant AY 2015-16. The Ld. PCIT held that assessment order passed by AO u/s 143(3) dated ... limited scrutiny. With reference to CBDT Instruction F. No. 225/26/2006 – ITA. II (Pt.) dated 08.09.2010, the mandate to convert a limited scrutiny case to complete scrutiny, there should be approval from the administrative Commissioner. The present case in hand has not dealt with in the said aspect

Sandeep P. Parikh, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -16, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesandeep P. Parikh Vs. Pr. Cit- 16 B-6, Anand Bhavan, Room No. 437, 4Th Bajaj Road, Vile Parle Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (W), Mumbai – 400056 Mk Road, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajpp8447R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Pankaj Toprani.Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajay. K. Srivastava.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-16, Mumbai Passed U/Sec 263 Of The Act, 1961. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal Due To Covid-19 Pandemic. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Sandeep P. Parikh, Mumbai. Delay & We Find The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & Acceptable. The Ld.Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

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 ... concerned, two type of cases have been selected for scrutiny in the current Financial Year-- one is 'Limited Scrutiny' and other is 'Complete Scrutiny'. The assessees concerned have duly been intimated about their cases falling either in Limited Scrutiny' or 'Complete Scrutiny' through notices issued under section

M/S. Darshan Construction, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 21, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1793/Mum/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ M/S. Darshan Construction Pcit-21 Room No.364, 3Rd Floor, B-001, Siddhivinayak Vs. Darshan, Ground Floor, J.R. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Bricha Marg, Saatrasta, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400011. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfd1634M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Pramod Kumar Parida & Kiran Vadher Revenue By: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.02.2019 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-21 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 2. “1. Order U/S 263 Is Bad-In-Law & May Be Vacated: (I) The Id. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S. 263 Without Appreciating That The Original Scrutiny Assessment Order Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue As The Assessing Officer Had Passed The Same After Due Application Of Mind On The Basis Of Entire Materials Submitted Before Him; Therefore, The Impugned Order U/S. 263 Passed

reason for selection. The AO was duty bound to obtain permission from Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax to convert it into complete scrutiny as the amount of addition on above issues was more than Rs.10 lakhs which was a pre-condition for converting limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny ... However, the AO did not propose it to the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax for obtaining the approval for converting it from limited to complete scrutiny and thereby verifying the issues on account of which addition on above account was possible and the quantum of which was more than

The ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Shelter Housing Development, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Acit-24(1) Mumbai Shelter Housing Development 401-402, Viraj Towers, Room No.601, Western Express Highway Near Piramal Chambers, Vs. Weh Metro Station, Jeejeebhoy Lane, Andheri (East) Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 093 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagfm6042A

Income Tax Act, 1961 [ The Act”]. Initially, the case of the appellant for A.Y. 2018-19 was selected for Complete Scrutiny assessment under the E- assessment Scheme 2019. Assessment Order, dated 26.09.2021, was passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act by the National E-Assessment Centre

Gujarat Pipavav Ports Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO -14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee for A

accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the ld. AO by observing that the purpose of scrutiny, be it “complete scrutiny” or “limited scrutiny”, is only to determine the total income of assessee and that the determination of total income certainly would include determination of total income under ... India (ICAI) as a separate line item. M/s. Gujarat Pipavav Port Ltd., The purpose of selection of a case for scrutiny be it complete scrutiny or limited scrutiny, is only determination of total income of the assessee. In our considered opinion, this would certainly include determination of total income both

M/S. S.K. Ventures, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -3, Thane

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Pr. Commissioner Of M/S S.K. Ventures Income Tax-3, 1, Ground Floor, Block No.1- 6Th Floor, A-Wing, Ashar It 25/145 Madhuban Hotel Park, Wagle, Industrial Vs. Road, Ulhasnagar, Kalyal, Estate, Thane West, Mumbai-421003 Mumbai-400 064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadas2607K

Limited scrutiny reasons. Ld AO did not have power to go beyond those issues unless the case of the assessee was converted in to complete scrutiny after taking necessary approval. No such approval was shown to us . Therefore ld AO could not have gone beyond those points and made inquiries

Great White Goal P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Asstt. CIT -CC-7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Great White Goal P. Ltd. The Asst. Cit-Cc7(2), 1301, 13Th Floor, Peninsula Room No.65, 6Th Floor, Business Park, Tower-B, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Mumbai-400 020 Parel, West, Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3669G Assessee By : Sri Nitesh Joshi, Ar Department By : Sri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2022

however, there was no question raised by the AO on this issue. The current assessment year i.e. assessment year 2018 – 19 was selected in complete scrutiny and the assessing officer has disallowed the depreciation on speedboat referring the orders of the earlier assessment years. Assessment year 2018 – 19 was passed

Deepak Valji Karia, Mumbai vs. ITO - 28(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleshri Deepak Valji Karia V. Income Tax Officer – 28(1)(3) Flat No. 2501, B Wing Room No. 327 Maroj Palm Paradise Tower No. 6, 3Rd Floor Palm Beach Road, Sector 17 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Sanpada, Navi Mumbai 400705 Pan: Ahfpk2679F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Department By Shri Sanjeev Kashyp

brokerage. The assessee filed his return of income for A.Y.2015-16 on 30.09.2015 declaring total income at ₹.14,76,480/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny, statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. In response, the AR of the assessee filed