← 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

Roshan Babulal Jain, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 681/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarroshan Babulal Jain V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Champion House, Bhavani बनाम Income Tax, 8Th Floor, Peth, Pune – 411 042, Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Maharashtra Annexe, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai–400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aseps9930M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri R. C.Doshi, (Virtually present)For Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, (Sr. DR)
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69A

name “Crest International” filed return of income for the impugned year declaring income of Rs. 5,74,474/-.Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny. During a search proceeding in the case of one M/s Fengyuan India Pvt. Ltd.(‘FIPL’)conducted

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-49(1), New Delhi vs. Suresh Kumar Goyal, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 3173/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Goyal, Acit, Circle-49(1), A-1/102, Ground Floor, New Delhi Janak Puri, Delhi Pan: Aaapg4996R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80G

same money was received back as loan advanced by M/s Golden Steel to appellant. The instant case was selected in CASS under complete scrutiny to examine the issue ‘Refund Claim and Unsecured Loan’. The scrutiny assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 10.05.2021 by making

Rajan Budhisagar Singh, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward-4, Navsari

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

ITA 13/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.13/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Rajan Budhisagar Singh The Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 506, Priti Complex, Ward – 4, Navsari Vs. Shital Park Society, Opp. Jalkamal Society, Navsari – 396445, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahkps9432M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Appellant By Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, Ca राज"कीओरसे /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke (Sr. Dr)With Shri Kevin Langaliya, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 06/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/11/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40ASection 40A(3)

Carting rent income and commission income from Sahara India and Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd.” The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny to verify the ‘Business expense’. During the assessment proceedings, assessee was asked to furnish details of commission received, depreciation details, interest paid, repairing expenses

Ladiwal Jewels & Sons LLP, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

ITA 456/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal, As Thereby Assessment Order Dated 19.05.2021, Relating To The Assessment Year 2018-19, Has Been Sustained.

For Appellant: Sh. Rajednra Sisodia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

both sides on merits today itself. 4 Ladiwal Jewels & Sons LLP, Jaipur. On Merits 9. Admittedly, the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act followed by notice u/s 142(1) of the Act accompanied by a questionnaire were

Matrix Automotive, Mumbai vs. Ward 41(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2607/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Matrix Automotive Income Tax Officer-Ward Shop No. 1,2,3,4 Ground Floor, 41(3)(2), Mumbai Business Classic, Chincholi Vs. Kautilya Bhawan, G Block Bunder Road, Malad West, Bkc, Gilban Area, Bandra Mumbai 400064 Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai 400051 Pan No. Aaxfm5446P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Dipesh Ruparelia (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

addition made for the partner’s capital deserve to be deleted on the account of beyond scope of limited scrutiny without converting into complete scrutiny. However, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee failed to explain before us whether the case was converted into complete scrutiny or not and therefore addition

Saint Marys Educational Society, Allahabad vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Prayagraj

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 61/ALLD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria, Ju Dicial Member

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 253(3)

return filed by the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee trust was selected for complete scrutiny. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. In response thereto, the assessee filed details as called

Sarjan Structure, Amreli vs. The DCIT/ACIT-2(1), Rajkot

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 413/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.413/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Sarjan Structure, Vs. The Dcit/Acit-2(1) Shyam Shikhar Complex, Aayakar Bhawan, Race Liliya Road, Course Ring Road, Amreli (Gujarat)– 365601 Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acofs8085K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Devina Patel, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Bynational Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 28/02/2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 29/12/2019, U/S 143(3)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: 1. The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Visakhapatnam Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Ex-Parte. Sarjan Structure Amreli

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act, by CPC accepting returned income. Subsequently, the assessee`s case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS and consequently, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 09/08/2018 and duly served upon the assessee. Thereafter, notice

Govindamma Isireddy, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Visakhapatnam

ITA 505/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.505/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Govindamma Isireddy, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-1(4), Pan: Afipi4540L Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 27/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 31/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Thane, Dated 12/08/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 28/12/2019 For 2 Govindamma Isireddy Vs. Ito

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

income for assessment year 2017-18 on 04/01/2018 declaring an income of Rs.8,34,900/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under section 143(2) of the Act. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO inter alia, observed that the assessee

Padmasree Steels Private Limited, Ravulapalem vs. DCIT, Circle - 1, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 292/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.292/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Vs. Dcit – Circle –1 Padmasree Steels Private Limited Rs No. 109 & 110 Devarapalli 3Rd Floor, Deepthi Towers Main Road Ravulapalem – 533238 Kakinada – 533001 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aadcp2642P]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

return was summarily processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 24.05.2019 and subsequently rectified on 28.11.2019. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under e-assessment scheme for the issue “Excess Contribution to Provident Furn, Superannuation Fund or Gratuity Fund”. Accordingly, notices under section

Neo Seeds India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-16(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1426/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 282Section 35Section 37(1)

Subsequently, the case of the 3 Neo Seeds India Private Limited vs. ITO assessee company was selected for complete scrutiny under the E- assessment Scheme, 2019 on multiple issues, viz., (i) default in TDS and disallowance for such default; (ii) deduction on account of donation for scientific research; (iii) unsecured

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Mangaldeep Chains, Bengaluru

ITA 2562/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CA
Section 115BSection 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 28Section 69ASection 69B

that the assessee filed return of income on 21/01/2021 declaring income of Rs. 4,50,91,170/- and the case was selected for complete scrutiny as survey u/s. 133A was conducted in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, notice u/s. 143(2) dated 28/06/2021 was issued to the assessee

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Mangaldeep Chains, Bengaluru

ITA 2561/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CA
Section 115BSection 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 28Section 69ASection 69B

that the assessee filed return of income on 21/01/2021 declaring income of Rs. 4,50,91,170/- and the case was selected for complete scrutiny as survey u/s. 133A was conducted in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, notice u/s. 143(2) dated 28/06/2021 was issued to the assessee

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5403/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhriacit 16(1) Vs. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan Room No. 439, Aaykar Jalsa B-2 Kapole Chs V L Bhavan, Mk Road, Marine Mehta Road Jvpd Scheme Lines, Juhu, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400049. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Adlpr35537P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan- Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

assessee filed her return for A.Y. 2022-23 on 22.10.2022 declaring total income of Rs. 39,33,02,240/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny for verification of several issues. After considering the assessee response, the ld. AO proposed to make disallowance of expenses relating to exempt income

Ador Welding Limited (Successor of Ador Fontech Limited), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4307/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ador Welding Limited (Successor Of Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ador Fontech Limited) Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai. Ador House, 6 K Dubash Marg, Fort, Vs. Mumbai – 400001. Pan/Gir No. Aaaca9076B (Appellant) (Respondent) :

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR DR)
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 37Section 37(1)Section 54E

income at Rs.10,62,45,330/- after duly recording the investment made u/s. 54EC of the Act. The assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny under E-Assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues: i. Claim of Any Other Amount Allowable as Deduction in Schedule BP ii. Expenditure

Fortrea Scientific Private Limited, Akruti Softech Park - Mumbai vs. PCIT - 3, Aayakar Bhavan - Mumbai

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

ITA 3477/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Pranay Gandhi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 3Section 37(1)Section 41Section 80G

claimed a refund of Rs. 2,41,96,210/-. 3.1. Assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment on the following issues:- i. Claim of Any other amount allowable as Deduction in Schedule BP ii. Taxability of business liability written off u/s 41 or any other section 3 I.T.A

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. Bright Buildtech Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 595/DEL/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit Vs Bright Buildtech Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-1 Flat No.14, Ground Floor A.R.T.O Complex Dda Mig, Suraj Sector-33, Noida Apartment, Pul Pehlad Pur New Delhi-110044 Pan-Aaccb7981J Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Rajesh Chandra, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Veersain Aggarwal, Ca Date Of Hearing 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

filing account of the assessee on the registered e-mail id of the assessee. The case of the assessee company was selected for complete scrutiny on various issues which are, (i) claim of any other amount allowable as deduction in Schedule BP; (ii) stock valuation; (iii) investments/advances/loans; (iv) business loss ... date of hearing of appeal.” 5. Before us, Ld.CIT DR for the Revenue submits that the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, AO found that the assessee has given interest free advances to various parties and claimed huge amount

ACIT, Cir.20(1), Mumbai vs. Girish Shamji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, the revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 3123/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary- Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57Section 68

Details of order Details of order Returned Income ( Income in Rs.) Assessed Claim of IFOS similar to current Appeal 1 2017-18 Complete scrutiny u/s. 143(3); 24/12/2019 7,05,64,360 7,05,64,360 Yes 2 2018-19 Limited scrutiny 143(3); 21/01/2021 ... Complete scrutiny 143(3); 23/03/2024 19,69,440 19,69,440 Yes Further the yearwise disclosure of interest was made as under: Asst. Year Interest Income Interest Expenses Difference of Interest

Sameer Ramesh Vashi, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-17, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 164/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Sameer Ramesh Vashi Vs The Principal Commissioner 702, Samrock Apartment, C.D. Of Income Tax, Barfiwala Road, Andheri-West, Mumbai-17 Mumbai - 400058 [Pan: Aaapv6356Q] Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Shri Rahul Hakani, Advocate Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Revisionary Order Of Pcit, Mumbai–17, Vide Order No. Itba/Com/F/17/2024- 25/1070374871(1), Dated 14.11.2024 Passed U/S. 263 Against The Assessment Order By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 14.03.2023 For Ay 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Pcit, Mumbai-17 Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 & Holding That Order Passed U/S 143(3) Dt 24-03-2021 Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Hence Directed The Ao To Reframe The Assessment.

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate and Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

covered by the limited scrutiny assessment. In respect of the preceding assessment year that is AY 2017-18, the case was selected for complete scrutiny and was not a limited scrutiny assessment. Hence, the facts for the two years are different. 4. After taking into account the submissions made

Sanjay, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 4(1)-Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5952/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 5952/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Sanjay Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Ca, M. R. Sahu, Ward-4(1), House No. 651, 1St Floor, Sector- Gurgaon, 10A, Near G. D. Goenka Public Haryana-122050 School, Gurgaon-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Eqsps3018G Assessee By : Sh. M. R. Sahu, Ca & Sh. Sudhir Yadav, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 Order

For Appellant: Sh. M. R. Sahu, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

declaring income of Rs. 6,35,470/-. His return was processed under section 143(1)(a) on 28.06.2019. His case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the e-assessment Scheme, 2019 on two issues, namely refund claim and winning from Lottery/crossword puzzle/horse races. The Ld. Assessing Officer ("AO") served

Sh Raj Kumar, Haryana vs. ITO Ward -5, Rohtak

Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 5449/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18 Raj Kumar, Vs. Ito, Ward-5, 1107/34, Vijay Nagar, Rohtak Rohtak-124001 Haryana (Pan: Bfypk0435H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

assessee filed his return of income on 09.08.2018 declaring income of Rs. 2,91,080/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS under complete scrutiny criteria. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee has deposited Rs. 49,58,500/- in his bank accounts in SBN notes during