← All Phrases

“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
42
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
39
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
35
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
21
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
20
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
13
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
11
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
11
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

Breach Candy Hospital Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 807/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalebreach Candy Hospital Vs. Cit (Exemptions) Trust, Room, Mp/ 617, 6Th 60, Bhulabhai Desai Floor, Piramal Road, Mumbai – Chambers, Lalbaug, 400026. Parel, Mumbai – 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb0214D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Ketan Ved. Ar Respondent By : Shri. Mahesh Akhade. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 19.03.2021.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Ketan Ved. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Mahesh Akhade. DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 263

along with questionnaire was issued. Earlier the case was selected for limited scrutiny and was converted to complete scrutiny after obtaining the approval from CIT(E), Mumbai. In compliance the Ld. AR of the Breach Candy Hospital Trush, Mumbai. assessee appeared from time to time and furnished the details

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 942/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

return of income on 29 November 2013 declaring a loss of Rs 81,27,45,632. 3. The said return was subsequently selected for complete scrutiny by issue of a notice under section 142(1)7143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") dated 15 September 2014. 4. During

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT, Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 941/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

return of income on 29 November 2013 declaring a loss of Rs 81,27,45,632. 3. The said return was subsequently selected for complete scrutiny by issue of a notice under section 142(1)7143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") dated 15 September 2014. 4. During

ACIT-8 (1) (1), Mumbai vs. Royal Western India Turf Club Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5754/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Acit-8(1)(1) M/S Royal Western Turf Club Room No. 624, 6Th Floor, Vs. Limited, Mahalaxmi Race Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Course, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 034

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mahendra Ahuja. Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Turf Club Ltd. assessee company was processed as such u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny assessment u/s 143(2) of the Act. 3. Controversy involved in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass, i.e, as to whether

M/S. Sai Suryaa Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 452/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT (DR)
Section 68

cash deposits in the bank account without obtaining a prior approval of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 6 for converting limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny as the Appellant Company’s case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the issue of cash in hand not the cash deposits

Pushp Steel and Mining Private Limited, Delhi vs. PCIT, Delhi-7

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 811/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. K. Narasimha Chary

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)(viia)

scrutiny based on the given reason unless the scope of enquiry was enlarged by adopting the due procedure to convert the limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny. The Hon’ble Bench relying on the decision of jurisdictional Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Brahma Center Development

Turner Builders & Promoters Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 25(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 184/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 2(14)(b)

That the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in law in confirming the action of the AO in converting the limited scrutiny into a complete scrutiny assessment contrary to the Instructions of the CBDT and without seeking the approval of the Pr.CIT/CIT. The assessment order consequent there to being

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi vs. Peregrine Guarding Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 5968/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2014-15 Addl. Cit, Vs Peregrine Guarding Pvt.Ltd., Special Range-7, Rz-1B, Kapashera Crossing, New Delhi. New Delhi-110037. Pan-Aadcp2498P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. I P S Bindra, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. Ajay Mangotia, Adv. Date Of Hearing 20.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 24.11.2021

Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(X)Section 37(1)

that the assessee company filed its original return of income on 29.11.2014 declaring income of Rs.15,46,10,480/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued requisite notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). In response to the notice

Kansi Technovation Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 2(3), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1492/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

that the assessee is a company and filed its return of income declaring loss of Rs.(-) 28,42,518/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 08.08.2017 fixing the case for hearing on 25.08.2017, which was duly served on the assessee

Rommana Herbal Care P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle3-21(2), New Delhi

Accordingly appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2629/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri G. S. Kohli, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan; Sr. D.R
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 35(1)(ii)

business of manufacturing and trader of cosmetics. It filed return of income on 23.11.2014 at Rs.9,13,33,830/-. The assessment was selected for complete scrutiny. During the year the assessee claimed deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act of Rs.17,50,000/- by making a donation

ACIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi vs. Pine Labs P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 567/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs Pine Labs P.Ltd., Circle-19(2), 202, Gupta Arcade, Lsc, Plot No.5, New Delhi. Mayur Vihar, Phase-1 Extn., New Delhi-110091. Pan-Aaccp7457K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Govind Singhal, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv. & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Date Of Hearing 05.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2021

income through electronic mode on 24.09.2014, declaring total income of Rs.3,32,65,350/-. The case of the assessee company was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer proceeded to frame the assessment. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that

Nirmal Gupta, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 9, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 108/Del/2018 (A.Y. 2015-16) (Through Video Conferencing) Nirmal Gupta Vs Pr. Cit-9 5/5, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aagpg0462J (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Ms. Rano Jain, Adv Respondent By Sh. Parmita M. Biswas, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2021

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

income for Assessment Year 2015-16 was e-filed on 2/9/2015 declaring total income of Rs. 8,76,900/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. During the assessment proceedings the CA/AR of the assessee attended the proceedings from time and filed the submissions along with the relevant

M/S Surjeet Auto Agency, Bhopal vs. Pr CIT-2, Bhopal

ITA 189/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2015-16 M/S Surjeet Auto Agency, Pr. Cit-2, 4-5, Lajpat Nagar, Raisen Bhopal बनाम/ Road, Apsara Cinema, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Aatfs 4110J Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Piush Parasar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’ For Short) By Ld. Pr. Cit-2 Bhopal Vide Order Dated 04.02.2020.The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

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

wheelers their part and accessories. The assessee is an authorized dealer of M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd., Pune. The case was selected through CASS for complete scrutiny for the following reasons: a) Low Income shown by large contractors. b) Mismatch in amount paid to related persons u/s 40A(2)(b) reported ... case records of assessee for A.Y.2015-16, it was notices that the case of the assessee was selected for the following reasons under the complete scrutiny:- (i) Low income shown by large contractors (ii) Mismatch in amount paid to related person u/s 40A(2)(b) reported in Audit Report

Shri Krishna Mohan Chuorsiya, Rajgarh vs. The Pr. CIT Ujjain, Ujjain

ITA 626/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Krishna Mohan Pr. Cit Choursiya(Prop. Of M/S Laxmi Ujjain Mp बनाम/ Auto Parts) Vs. Ward No.14, Bus Stand, Kurawar Rajgarh(M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aempc3634G

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

property in ITR is less than sale consideration of property reported in ITR The case of the appellant was subsequently converted into complete scrutiny vide approval letter dated 06-12-2016 from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ujjain. Consequently an assessment order dated 28-12- 2016 was passed under ... reported in ITR 14. Ld. AO called for various details to examine these issues and also the case of the assessee was converted into complete scrutiny vide approval letter of Ld. Pr. CIT, Ujjain dated 06.12.2016. During the assessment proceeding assessee was asked to reply as to why the sale

Ritu Mittal, Burhanpur vs. ITO Burhanpur, Burhanpur

In the result, all grounds raised by the assessee(s) are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee in ITANo

ITA 435/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2015-16

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

that the assessee is an individual. She filed e-return of income on 29.10.2015 showing income at Rs.3,22,610/-. Case selected under complete scrutiny through CASS followed by serving of notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. While examining records it was revealed that during

Neelam Mittal, Burhanpur vs. ITO Burhanpur, Burhanpur

In the result, all grounds raised by the assessee(s) are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee in ITANo

ITA 434/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2015-16

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

that the assessee is an individual. She filed e-return of income on 29.10.2015 showing income at Rs.3,22,610/-. Case selected under complete scrutiny through CASS followed by serving of notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. While examining records it was revealed that during

Amit Kumar Dey, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5526/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaa N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54

notice u/s 143(2) dated 20/09/2016 on issue of“deduction claimed under the head capital gains” which was never converted to complete scrutiny as per extant CBDT instructions and fourthly said re-characterization on its merits also is misdirected and clearly against the principle of consistency and CBDT circulars which ... raised first ground of appeal that when the case of the assessee was selected under the limited scrutiny criteria, without converting same into complete scrutiny, the ld. Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT (Appeals) could not have gone on making additions and adjustments on issues other than issues

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-46, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8058/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Partially Through Video Conferencing) Dabur Invest Corp, The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Income Tax , Rouse Avenue, New Delhi Range-46, Pan: Aaadfd2529G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143Section 4

liability in its balance sheet. To examine the nature of the aforesaid receipt, proposal to convert the case from limited scrutiny into the complete scrutiny was moved and The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 16, New Delhi, on 13 December 2017, approved it. Therefore, the case of the assessee ... converted in complete scrutiny. 07. On perusal of the audit report filed by the assessee and the „Notes to the accounts‟ learned AO noted that at serial number [3] of such notes reads as under:- “The firm has received ₹ 2070.04 cores (including ₹ 246.84 cores received during the year) from commercial

Kulbhushan Khosla vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed but, in the facts and circumstances of the case,

ITA - 33 / 2004HC Delhi14 Dec 2015
Section 143Section 260A

reopening the assessment. 19. This was a case where the original assessment was completed under Section 143 (3). In other words there was a complete scrutiny of the accounts and all the affidavits of the donors furnished by the Assessee pursuant to the questionnaires issued