← 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

Saket Agarwal, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -45(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6116/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Shri Saket Agrawal, Vs Ito, 392/1, 2Nd Floor, Ward-45(2), Sainik Vihar, Pitam Pura, Delhi Delhi-110085. Pan-Aavpa3410D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Shri Saksham Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-15/10489/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act,1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 26.03.2018, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 10,02,940/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny For The Reason That Assessee Has Deposited Cash In Specified Bank Notes (Sbn) During Demonetization & Due To The Survey Carried Out At The Business Premises Of The Assessee.

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

filed his return of income on 26.03.2018, declaring total income of INR 10,02,940/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny for the reason that assessee has deposited cash in specified bank notes (SBN) during demonetization and due to the survey carried out at the business

Pedne Taluka Farmers Service Co-Operative Society Limited, Pedne vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(2), Panaji

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

ITA 198/PAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji23 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. No.198/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) Pende Taluka Farmers Service Vs I T O Ward2(2), Co-Operative Society Limited, Aaykar Bhavan, . Sahakar Bhawan, Edc, Patto, Pernem, Panjim Goa-403512. Goa-403001. Pan .No. Aaaap0651P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Arun .F.Naik.Ar Revenue By Shri.Guru Kumar.S.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 22.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of The Addl/Jcit (A)-12 Mumbai Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Submitted That There Is A Delay Of 154 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & The Assesse Has Filed The Application & Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. Whereas, The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & Sufficient Cause Is Explained & The Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal

Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

total income of Rs. Nil after claiming deduction of Rs.38,61,056/- u/sec 80P of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Further notice u/sec143 (2) and u/sec 142(1) of the Act are issued calling for details in support of return of income filed

Pranati Buildcon, Kota vs. ACIT/DCIT Cen Cir, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hanedra Gargieya, Adv. (V.C.)For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR a
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 69C

total income of Rs.1,17,31,970/-, which also included such offered additional income of Rs.8,90,000/-. Thereafter, the case was selected for Complete Scrutiny assessment and the impugned assessment was completed vide order dated 11.05.2021 passed u/s 143(3). 2. The AO during the assessment proceedings, accepted

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Goldendunes Heights LLP, Jaipur

ITA 1352/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 68

same from the total work in progress of the assessee. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the case was selected for Complete Scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme. 2019 on the following issues- S. No. Issues i. Income from Real Estate Business ii. Business Loss 3 Goldendunes

Parag Dave, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1) (Previously Circle-3(3)), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 894/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Makarand V. Mahadeokarassessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Khandhar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 36(1)

work. The assessee filed return of income on 12-08-2016 declaring total income of Rs. 21,58,700/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 11-07-2017. Subsequently, the notice u/s. 142(1) along

Vedic Foundation Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(2), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4975/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4975/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Vedic Foundation Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 43-B, First Floor, Mig Flat, Ward-26(2), Pocket-B Dilshad Garden, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110095 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci8590C Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A), Panchkula’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1077029340(1) Dated 13.06.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

forward losses was inadmissible since the beginning itself and therefore the Assessing Officer was justified in disallowing the same without converting the case into complete scrutiny? 5. We have heard Mr. Amit Sharma, learned standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, learned senior Advocate for the respondent ... limited scrutiny were beyond jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer as the scrutiny assessment was selected for limited scrutiny under Section 143(2) and not complete scrutiny. The Department objected to the additional ground which were raised by the appellant before the Tribunal. However, the learned Tribunal overruled the said objection

Shri Vishwakarama Jewellers, Akola vs. DCIT Akola Circle, Akola

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 99/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri S.G. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 69B

filed return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 09/10/2017 declaring total income of ` 97,04,550. The case was selected for complete scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee that the declaration of additional income

Shree Datta Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Sangli vs. ITO Ward-5, Sangli

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 (ITA

ITA 626/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sarang S. GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 56Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

after claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of Rs.1,62,82,771/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the E- assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issue : (i) Bonus or Commission to Employee; (ii) Investment/Advances/Loans and (iii) Deduction from total

Shree Datta Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Sangli vs. ITO Ward-5, Sangli

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 (ITA

ITA 625/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sarang S. GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 56Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

after claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of Rs.1,62,82,771/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the E- assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issue : (i) Bonus or Commission to Employee; (ii) Investment/Advances/Loans and (iii) Deduction from total

Devendra Kumar, Bijnor vs. ITO Ward (3)(5), Najibabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4778/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4778/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Devendra Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Village Sarkara Chakrajmal, Ward-(3)(5), Dhampur, Bijnor, U.P.-246761 Income Tax Officer, Najibabad, U.P.-246731 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bpppk0759H Assessee By: Sh. Pankaj Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Ahmedabad’S Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1069778857(1) Dated 18.10.2024, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

forward losses was inadmissible since the beginning itself and therefore the Assessing Officer was justified in disallowing the same without converting the case into complete scrutiny? 5. We have heard Mr. Amit Sharma, learned standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, learned senior Advocate for the respondent ... limited scrutiny were beyond jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer as the scrutiny assessment was selected for limited scrutiny under Section 143(2) and not complete scrutiny. The Department objected to the additional ground which were raised by the appellant before the Tribunal. However, the learned Tribunal overruled the said objection

Shree Roshan Cold Storage, Sambhal vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, accordingly, the order passed u/s 263 of the Act is set aside

ITA 3156/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahmanshree Roshan Cold Storage, Vs. Pr.Cit, Vpo – Rustampur Vill. Niyawali, Bareilly (U.P.) Sambhal – 244 302 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan :Aagfs7012N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V. Rajakumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Citdr Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2025 Date Of Order : 22.09.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman:

For Appellant: Shri V. Rajakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CITDR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 263

Rs.9,58,149/- on total storage rent received on Potatoes of Rs.1,64,45,520/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected under complete scrutiny through CASS. 2 The reasons for scrutiny are undisclosed income reported by ld. PCIT after online verification of cash deposited during demonetization period

Sneh Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-32(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on both counts on merit as well as jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee in the additional ground of appeal

ITA 3928/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 54F

initiated with the mandate of limited scrutiny. Since he has expanded the mandate of verifications, the AO should have converted the limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny. There is no record available on record which shows that AO has actually taken permission or taken any action to convert the limited scrutiny ... into complete scrutiny. 5. Before us, assessee has raised additional Ground No.1 that the case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify whether investment and income relating to properties are duly disclosed but disallowance as made in the assessment order by disallowing the deduction which is not permissible in limited

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Fmi Automotive Components Private Limited, Haryana

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3489/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahmandcit, Circle 7 (1), Vs. Fmi Automotive Components Private Limited, Delhi. Plot No.1, Subplot 4, 5, 8 & 9 Msil, Supplier Park, Phase 3A, Imt Manesar, Gurgaon – 1222 050 (Haryana). (Pan :Aabcf1682P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri S.K. Agarwal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date Of Order : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 30.05.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Nfac Has Erred In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee By Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao Amounting To Rs.5,90,59,019/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Foreign Exchange Loss On Account Of Plant & Machinery.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 41

return was processed under section 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS with the reasons “Opening Written Down Value of fixed assets as per ITR of current year is greater than closing Written Down

Quartzkraft LLP, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 836/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(3)

return of income for A.Y. 2021–22 on 20.01.2022, declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) compared turnover figures and noted that, as per GST returns

Megnanapuram Paccs, Tiruchendur vs. PCIT, Madurai

ITA 895/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:895/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Megnanapuram Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society 4/40, Megnanapuram Tiruchendur Road, Tiruchendur Thoothukudi – 628 210. [Pan: Aabam-9847-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Pcit Vs. Madurai - I (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Pcit, Madurai - 1, For The Assessment Year 2018-19, Vide Order Dated 17.03.2025. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P

response to notice under Section 148 of the Act without assigning proper reasons and justification. 9) The PCIT failed to appreciate that there was complete scrutiny of facts referred to in the revision order while passing the re-assessment order passed by the JAO and hence ought to have appreciated

Maharaja Agrasen Urban Co Op Credit Society Limited, Hubballi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hubballi

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

ITA 210/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Harsha J, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 68Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

assessee also filed their return of income and claimed deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Their case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and several notices were issued u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) Page 2 of 4 of the Act. The assessee also submitted

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Sunstore Solar Private Limited, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 4273/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2022-23 Asst. Commissioner Of Sunstore Solar Private Limited, Income Tax, Flat 202, Kapil Vastu Chs, Room No. 455, 4Th Floor, Vs. Plot 20 Sector 21, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai, Raigad Kharghar Churchgate, Navi Mumbai Mumbai-400020. Maharashtra-410210. Pan : Abgcs7616C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 69C

appeal before us. 4. During the course of hearing, the Ld. DR submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny and notices were issued during the course of assessment proceedings. It was submitted that the AO also issued notices

Meena Swarup, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2050/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Mrs. Meena Swarup, Vs Dcit, 397, Mandakini Enclave, Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi-110019. Intl. Tax., Pan-Amrps5792E New Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.S.Ahuja, Ca & Shri P.S.Sodhi, Adv. Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Impugned Assessment may please be quashed on this ground alone. a. For the year under consideration, case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for complete scrutiny. Statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act, 1961 was issued on 21.09.2015 by Assessing Officer, Ward 30(2), who was admittedly

Devenra Kumar Gupta, Rewa vs. ACIT, Circle Satna, Satna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 38/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Devendra Kumar Gupta V. Acit Circle Satna 17/304, Venkat Road, Ghoghar, Income Tax Office, Aaykar Rewa-486001. Bhawan, Civil Lines, Satna-485001. Pan: Ahapg6843Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Advocate. Respondent By: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 16 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.DR-1
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) by Central Processing Centre (CPC). Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). Therefore, a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 25.09.2018 and duly served upon

Kanishka F&B, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 501/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the Tribunal. In respect of the belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit and the relevant paragraphs from the affidavit are extracted herein below:

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

declaring a loss of Rs. 26,91,175/-. The return was processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act and the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for the reasons ‘introduction of large capital or share capital in the year of incorporation’. Thereafter, notice