← 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

Umang Boards Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1 Jaipur, Jaipur

12. In view of the above discussion, this appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 969/JPR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Challenging Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act, Relating To The Assessment Year 2018-19. Said Appeal Came To Be Dismissed, While Observing That Despite Issuance Of Notices U/S 250 Of The Act, There Was No Participation In The Appellate Proceedings By The Appellant & The Appeal Deserved To Be Dismissed In View Of The Material On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36

beyond the reasons for scrutiny selection and such cases are called Limited Scrutiny cases and only the remaining returns are taken up for complete scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act. 13.2 Meaning thereby, that exercise of power under sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act leading

Tinich Sahkari Ganna Samiti Limited, Bastii vs. ITO, Basti

ITA 295/LKW/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma and Shri Amit Kumar, D.Rs
Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

year under consideration on ITA No.295/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 28 17.12.2015, declaring income at Nil. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee had received commission of Rs.33,80,618/- from

Tinich Sahkari Ganna Samiti Limited, Basti vs. ITO, Basti

ITA 294/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma and Shri Amit Kumar, D.Rs
Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

year under consideration on ITA No.295/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 28 17.12.2015, declaring income at Nil. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee had received commission of Rs.33,80,618/- from

Vivek Tracom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2522/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrisonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR
Section 143(2)

vehemently submitted that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 13.09.2018, does not specify whether it is a limited scrutiny or a complete scrutiny or a compulsory manual scrutiny. The Id. AR submitted that the CBDT has issued specific instruction vide instruction no. F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II Dated ... other hand submitted that this is a computer- generated notice and the non-mentioning of the fact of either limited or complete scrutiny or compulsory manual scrutiny would not render the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act as invalid. Therefore, additional ground raised by the assessee

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-3(2)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. Solapur Yedeshi Tollway Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4242/MUM/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S, Hon’Bleacit 3(2)(1), Solapur Yedeshi Tollway Limited, Off No.11Th Floor, 1101, Mumbai Vs. Hiranandani Knowledge Park, Technology Street, Powai, Mumbai 400 076. Pan Aaucs1433Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – Sr AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37

Return of Income (RoI) for the relevant assessment year declaring a total income of Rs.2,04,23,100/-. The case was taken up for complete scrutiny and by virtue of order dated 19.07.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, there was no addition made and the returned income ... contract dated 29.03.2014. 13. We have considered the submissions made. In this case, the record discloses that the case was taken up for a complete scrutiny and eventually the Assessing Officer passed an order on 19.07.2019 without making any addition. Although, the Assessing Officer has subsequently observed that there

Jagdish Savant, Belgaum vs. Income Tax Officer, Belgaum

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

ITA 227/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.227/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18 ) Jagdish Shambhu Savant, Vs Ito-Ward-4, 102,Kaivalya Residency, Feroj Khimjibhai Cpx, . Budhwar Peth, Civil Hospital Road Belagavi-590006, Belagavi-590001. Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan/Gir No. Assps9453P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 68

filed the return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 18.12.2017 disclosing a total income of Rs.6,91,070/-. Subsequently the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS 2 ITA. No.227 /PAN/2025 Jagdish shambhu savant. to- verify large cash deposit during the demonetization period and abnormal increase in sales with decrease

Radheshyam Paper Mills Private Limited, Lilapar Road, Lilapar vs. PCIT-Rajkot-1, Income Taxdepartment, Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhavan Ring Road Race Course Rajkot

In the result, appeal OF the assessee is allowed

ITA 243/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Raiyani, Ld.A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Pallavi, Ld.CIT-D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 69Section 69B

income for assessment year (A.Y.) 2019-20, on 28.02.2020, declaring total income of Rs.4,20,18,210/-. The assessee`s case was selected for complete scrutiny, on account of survey proceedings carried out on 12.02.2019 at the business premises of the assessee. The Assessment was finalized

Nmd Constructions LLP, Bhilwara vs. ITO, Ward-1, Bhilwara

In the result, based on above the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 547/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarnmd Constructions Llp, C/O. Garg Petroleum Near Railway Phatak, Bhilwara 311 001 Pan No. Aanfn 8731C ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle-01, Ajmer …...Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. B. P. Mundra, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132ASection 132oSection 133ASection 250Section 292C

assessee firm filed its return of income on 03.11.2021 declaring total income at Rs. 95.69 Lacs. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny as per CBDT Guidelines in survey cases. During the course of survey, a statement was recorded u/s. 131 of the Act of Shri Naresh

Munjal Auto Industries Limited, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the direction that the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law

ITA 271/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Munjal Auto Industries Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) 187 Gide Estate Vadodara. Waghodia Dist. Vadodara-391 760 Gujarat. Pan: Aaacg 8588 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ar Assessee By : Shri Yoeesh Mishra, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Yoeesh Mishra, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 250Section 251Section 270ASection 80G

filed its return of income for A.Y. 2018–19 on 30.11.2018 declaring total income of Rs.37,32,33,850/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for verification of deductions under Chapter VI-A, ICDS adjustments, deduction u/s 80IA/80IAB/80IC/10AA and claim of other deductions in Schedule

ITO, Kolkata vs. Ajit Kumar Minda, Kolkata

ITA 2668/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaι.Τ.Α. No.2668/Kol/2024

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

income from other sources. The assessment in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2015-16 was passed u/s 143(3) as complete scrutiny vide assessment order dated 20.04.2017 by discussing all issues. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and notice

Income Tax Officer 34(2), New Delhi vs. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, Aj

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 4031/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer 34(20 Vs. Kamal Kishore Mishra Aj New Delhi 30-B Ist Floor Shalimar Bagh New Delhi 110088 Pan No. Czepm8418D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 44ASection 68Section 69A

income declaring total income of Rs. 5,01,440/- on 16-01-2018 under section 44AD of the Act. The case was selected for complete scrutiny for the reason:- (i) Abnormal increase in cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to demonetization period (ii) Amount paid /credited as per Form

Murli Dhar Upadhyay, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, stands allowed

ITA 252/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A(1)Section 40A(3)

cash deposited during the demonetization period. Notice issued u/s 143(2) does not specify whether it has been selected for Limited scrutiny or Complete scrutiny. During the hearings, the Ld. AR submitted that it was a case of Limited scrutiny. He also referred to the notices issued ... made and not on any other issues. On contra Ld. DR could not place on record to show that the case was selected for Complete scrutiny or the case was later converted to Complete scrutiny. Under these circumstances, to our understanding. We have no reason to dispute the contention

Shobha Sundar Babu, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 493/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate –Standing
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250

income for the assessment year 2018-19 on 24.7.2018 declaring total income of Rs. NIL. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under E-assessment scheme-2019 through CASS on the issue of “income from house property”. Consequently, notices u/s 143(2) as well

Shri. Biluru Gurubasava Sahakari Pattina Sangh Niyamit, Bagalkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bagalkot

ITA 418/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)

19/01/2021 u/s 139(1) of the Act declaring total income of Rs. NIL. Thereafter the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and accordingly notices u/s 143(2) of the Act, 142(1) of the Act along with the show cause notices were issued. The assessee

Shri Biluru Gurubasava Sahakari Pattina Sangh Niyamit, Bagalkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bagalkot

ITA 417/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)

19/01/2021 u/s 139(1) of the Act declaring total income of Rs. NIL. Thereafter the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and accordingly notices u/s 143(2) of the Act, 142(1) of the Act along with the show cause notices were issued. The assessee

Shri Venkateshwar Urban Credit Souhard Sahakari Limited, 1210, Athani H.O, Athni, Belgaum, 591304, Karnatak vs. Income Tax Officer, Belgaum

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

ITA 206/PAN/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji15 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.206/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18 ) Shri Venkateshwar Urban Vs Ito-Ward-3, Credit Souhard Sahakari Ltd, Feroj Khimjibhai Cpx, . 1210,Athani, H.O.Athani, Civil Hospital Road Belagavi-591304, Belagavi-590001. Karnataka. Karnataka. . Pan .No. Aacas1356G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Jaykumar Patil.Ar Revenue By Smt.Manju Thakur.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 10.09.2025 15.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of Addl/Jcit (A)-2 Jaipur Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Ex-Parte Order Of The Cit(A) Sustaining The Denial Of Claim Of Deduction U/Sec80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act Made By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is A Cooperative Credit Society & Is Engaged In Activities Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members. The Assesse Has Filed The Return Of Income For The A.Y 2017-18 On 25.01.2018 Disclosing A Total Income Of Rs.Nil After

Section 80P

Shri Venkateshwar Urban Credit Souhard Sahakari Ltd. claiming deduction of Rs.18,54,940/- u/sec 80P of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS to examine (i) Low income in comparison to high loans/advances/investment in shares appearing in balance sheet and (ii) Large deduction Under Chapter

Pradeep Kumar Rochwani, Jodhpur vs. Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 567/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, Adv. (throughFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 263

cheque etcfurnished by appellant had reached a conclusion that the claim of refund is genuine and also no required for any permission to complete scrutiny from higher authority and accordingly passed the assessment order and accepted the income disclosed by appellant. c. Subsequently, show notice u/s 263 issued by PCIT ... cannot exceed the latitude of limited scrutiny unless the scope of scrutiny is expanded or the case is converted from ‘limited scrutiny’ to ‘complete scrutiny’ with the approval of authority, as specified by the Hon’ble CBDT. The issue of genuineness of indexed cost of acquisition as claimed by assessee

Baba Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle 4(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 798/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income Baba Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Circle 4(4) Room No.5, 3 Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 11/A, M.D. Road, Vs. 110, Shantiapply, Em Byepass Kolkata-700007 Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aakcs6228D Assessee By : Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

vehemently submitted that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 27.06.2022, does not specify whether it is a limited scrutiny or a complete scrutiny or a compulsory manner scrutiny. The ld. AR submitted that the CBDT has issued specific instruction vide instruction no. F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II Dated ... other hand submitted that this is a computer- generated notice and the non-mentioning of the fact of either limited or complete scrutiny or compulsory manual scrutiny would not render the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act as invalid. Therefore, additional ground raised by the assessee

Rohit Seth, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 30(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the is allowed

ITA 1205/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ito, Ward 30(4), Rohit Seth Aaykar Bhawan Dakshin, Fd 100, Sector-3, 2, Gariahat Road South, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700106 Vs. Kolkata-700068 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Dfvps7680F Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikari, DR
Section 143(2)

vehemently submitted that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 24.09.2018, does not specify whether it is a limited scrutiny or a complete scrutiny or a compulsory manual scrutiny. The ld. AR submitted that the CBDT has issued specific instruction vide Rohit Seth; A.Y. 2017-18 instruction ... other hand submitted that this is a computer- generated notice and the non-mentioning of the fact of either limited or complete scrutiny or compulsory manual scrutiny would not render the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act as invalid. Therefore, additional ground raised by the assessee

Chandan Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Mumbai 4, Mumbai

ITA 3444/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

claimed an amount of Rs.39,93,000/- u/s.80G of the Act. It was submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny and one of the reasons for selection of the case relates to examination of deduction under chapter VI-A of the Act. It was submitted