“complete scrutiny”

Sp Armada Oil Exploration Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailsp Armada Oil Exploration Private Limited 404, Trade Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051. Pan: Aaqcs7983P ............... Appellant

return of income on 15/03/2022, declaring a total income of INR 31,63,85,208. The return filed by the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny, inter alia, on the issue of the large value of international transactions in the nature of technical service fees (TP risk parameter). Accordingly

Ltimindtree Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT (2)(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriltimindtree Limited Vs. Acit, Circle (2)(2)(1) (Formerly Larse & Toubro Mumbai/Cit(A)-Nfac- Infotech Limited) Delhi L & T Technology Center, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor , Gate No. 5, Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Road, Powai, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacl1681P Appellant .. Respondent

assessee filed its return declaring income of Rs. 1738,57,16,720/- for A.Y. 2021-22 on 04.03.2022. The case was selected for complete scrutiny as the assessee had shown large value of international transactions in the nature of Technical service fees. Reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer

Deepak Dhanraj Rathod, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 42(1)(2), Mumbai

Bench: the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 44, Mumbai in physical form. Subsequently, the appeal was migrated to National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in terms of Notification No.76 of 2020, dated 25/09/2020, issued by Central Board for Direct Taxes (CBDT), New Delhi. Vide Order, dated 23/05/2025, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee which has been impugned by way of present appeal preferred by the Assessee.

facts in brief are that the Assessee, a resident individual, filed return of income in the Assessment Year 2017-2018 which was selected for complete scrutiny. Assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was framed on the Assessee vide Assessment Order, dated 23/12/2019, whereby addition of INR.33

Professional Artist Cosmetics LLP, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -41, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

partnership engaged in the manufacture and trading of cosmetic products, filed its return of income declaring ₹89,90,640. The case was selected for complete scrutiny, with focus on unsecured loans and interest payments. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued detailed notices under section 142(1), seeking reconciliation

Lupin Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2019-20 Lupin Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Kalpataru Inspire, Income Tax-3, Off Western Express Highway, Vs. Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400055. Maharshi Karve Road, Pan : Aaacl1069K Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 28-11-2019, which was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and thereafter, after issuance of notices and calling for necessary information/documentation, the assessment proceedings were completed by the Assessing officer and an order

Anuh Pharma Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -5, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

assessee revised its return of income on 12.02.2021 declaring the same total income and book profit under MAT. Thereafter, the return was selected for complete scrutiny on the issues including verification of deduction claimed for industrial undertaking u/s 80IA of the Act. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s

J P Morgan Services India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrij P Morgan Services India Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited (‘The Income-Tax, Circle 2(2)(1) Appellant’) Aayakar Bhawan, Tower A Blk 9, Tower B Blk Maharishi Karve Road, 10, Tower C Blk 11, Nirlon New Marine Lines, Knowledge Park, Western Churchgate, Express Highway, Goregaon Mumbai-400020. East, Mumbai Suburban, 400063. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcd0503B Appellant .. Respondent

world. Assessee filed its return for A.Y. 2020-21 declaring income of Rs. 1673,59,84,020/- on 31.12.2021. The case was selected complete scrutiny. After incorporating the directions of ld. DRP, final assessment was completed after making the following additions: i. Variation in respect of TP adjustment