“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shaileshkumar Dahyabhai Patel, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(2) (Now DCIT Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

In the result, Ground Number 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2131/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta & Shri Bhavin Marfatia, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR

Section 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(b)Section 6Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

19/09/2018 declaring income at Rs 3,82,51,890/-. The case of the appellant was selected for the complete scrutiny to verify the issues of "ICDS Compliance and adjustment" and the "details of assets and liabilities". During the scrutiny proceedings it was found by the AO that the appellant

Reema Agarwal, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

ITA 353/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.353/Hyd./2021

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 111ASection 139(1)

short "the Act"], 1961 on 31.03.2016 declaring total income of Rs.47,75,170/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has declared net purchases of Rs.8,03,16,136/- after adjusting loss

Mamta Construction Co, Mehsana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1530/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalmamta Construction Co., Deputy Commissioner Vs. 20, Madhuvan Complex, Of Income-Tax, Nr. Icici Bank, State Highway, Gandhinagar Mehsana-384 002 [Pan :Aaifm 6254 A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hasmukh V. Doshi, Ca Respondent By: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Hasmukh V. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 250

income for the Assessment Year 2018-19 declaring a total income of Rs.96,99,110/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under the e-assessment scheme. During the year, the assessee debited various expenses in its audited profit and loss account which includes :- i. Purchase : Rs.11

ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Farmson Pharmaceutical Gujarat Private Limited, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1835/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R

Section 115JSection 144(1)Section 37Section 92BSection 92CSection 92E

book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act at Rs. 12,97,69,573/-. The assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny. Various statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee’s case was referred to the transfer pricing officer in the order u/s. 92CA

Samir Navinchandra Shah, Paldi, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Vejalpur

In the result, the appeal of the asessee is allowed

ITA 1461/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumbhare, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

that the assessee engaged in advertising business, had filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.48,33,320/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny as the assessee had deposited total cash amounting to Rs. 32,90,000/- during demonetization period in different bank accounts. Accordingly, notice

Seven Energies Odisha Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT Circle 3(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1518/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1518/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Seven Energies Odisha Vs. Acit, Limited, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aatcs5759E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Sashank Dundu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 07/02/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 18/12/2018 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Sashank DunduFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr.AR

Section 143(3)Section 69

without seeking approval of the CIT and getting the 10 Seven Energies Odisha Limited vs. ACIT said ‘limited scrutiny’ converted into a ‘complete scrutiny' could not have made the addition of Rs.3.78 crores under section 69 of the Act. 13. Apropos, the merits of the case, the Ld. AR submitted

The Uppilipalayam Mill Industrial Workers Coop House Construction Society Ltd., Coimbatore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 1(4), Coimbatore

In the result, both the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 3898/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 3897 &3898 /Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2020-21 The Uppilipalayam Mill Industrial V. Ito, Workers Coop House Construction Non Corporate Ward Society Ltd., 1(4) Coimbatore Uppilipalayam Post, Coimbatore-641015 [Pan: Awvpg 3572 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. A Vijayalakshmi, CAFor Respondent: 17.02.2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 80P(2)(a)

after claiming deduction under Chapter VI-A of Rs. 36,99,754/-. The case of the assessee was selected for 'complete Scrutiny' through CASS to examine assessee's claim of deduction under chapter VI-A and issued notice u/s 143(2) dated 29.06.2021. Again notice u/s. 142(1) issued

The Uppilipalayam Mill Industrial Workers Coop House Construction Society Ltd., Coimbatore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 1(4), Coimbatore

In the result, both the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 3897/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. A Vijayalakshmi, CAFor Respondent: 17.02.2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 80P(2)(a)

ACIT-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Quality Application Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7859/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaracit Circle-4(1)(1) Quality Application Room No. 642, 6Th Solution, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B-Wing, 3Rd Floor, M. K. Road, Mumbai- Interface Building No. 400 020 16, Mindspace Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400 064 Pan/Gir No. Aabca3829K (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Assessee By Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe, Ld. Ars Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

predetermined rates. 3. The assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 19,39,75,680/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for the reasons: i. Low turnover in comparison to outward foreign remittance; ii. Foreign remittance made to persons located

Income Tax Officer, Dehradun vs. Rakesh Mohan Verma, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 122/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Ito Vs Rakesh Mohan Verma Ward-1(1)(3) 144, Neshvilla Road, Aaykar Bhawan, Dehradun, Uttarakhand- 13 A, Subhhash Road, 248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Abbpvcv4728J Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri A.S.Rana, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Amit Arora, Ca & Shri Vishal Mishra, Ca Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 15.05.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A) Dehradun/10729/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed His Return Of Income, Declaring Total Income 10,94,900/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass With The Issue “Large Cash Deposits Compared To Returned Income”. Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 08.08.2018, Followed By Notices U/S 142(1) Issued From Time To Time. In Response, The Assessee Filed Replies & Produced All The Information & Supporting Documentary Evidences For Examination. The Ao Vide Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Inr 1,53,25,642/- Wherein Addition Of Inr 69,81,000/- Is Made As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act Towards The Bank Deposits & Further Inr 9,60,568/- Added As Unexplained Income Being Difference Between Deposits & Income Declared. Further An Addition Of Inr 62,89,172/- Is Made As One Fourth Payments Against Loan Repayment Of Rs.251,56,689/- Repaid From Undisclosed Sources U/S 69A Of The Act.

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

provision of the Act to obtain prior approval from competent authority as per CBDT Instruction for conversion of case from limited to complete scrutiny. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any other more ground of appeal as stated above as and when need for doing ... case by treating the case of the assessee as selected under comprehensive scrutiny and no approval was taken for conversion from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny as per the CBDT guidelines. The relevant observations made by ld. CIT(A) in para 6.2.2 to para 6.2.10 of the order are reproduced

Raigaon Sugar and Power Limited, Karad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Cir-Satara, Satara

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3177/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 270A

limited company and return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 filed on 31.10.2018 declaring income of ₹ 4,35,83,070/-. Case selected for complete scrutiny to examine two issues, namely, default in TDS and disallowance for such default and ICDS compliance and adjustments. However, to the notice of hearing issued

Raigaon Sugar and Power Limited, Karad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Cir-Satara, Satara

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3176/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 270A

M/S.Runwal Commercial Assets Pvt Ltd (Now Merged With Wheelabrator Alloy Castings Limited), Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7623/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarm/S. Runwal Commercial Ito Ward-15(3)(1), Assets Pvt. Ltd. (Now Aayakar Bhavan, Merged With Vs. Maharshi Karve Wheelabrator Alloy Road, New Marine Castings Limited) Lines, Churchgate, Runwal & Omkar Mumbai-400 020 Esquires, 4Th Floor, Off Eastern Exp. Highway Opp. Sion Chuan Bhatti Signal, Sion East, Mumbai-400 022 Pan/Gir No. Aajcr7366J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 68

return of income for the year under consideration on 26.09.2023 declaring total income of (-) Rs. 14,82,894/- (Loss). The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS on the issues of: (i) Substantial increase in share capital in a year; and (ii) Non-compliance with Indian Accounting Standards

Brightmoon Securities Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 25(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3285/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Brightmoon Securities Private Ito, Ward 25(1) Limited Aaykar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Gariahat Road (South) Advocates, 2 Garstin Place, 2 Nd Room No.1/9, 1St Floor, Vs. Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Kolkata-700053, Street, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagcb7280E Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Susanta Saha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Susanta Saha, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 19.09.2018, declaring total income of ₹1,72,800/-, which was selected for complete scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). Thereafter, the notice u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued on 28.09.2019 & 06.01.2020 respectively, along with

Indrani Sikder, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 36(6), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3284/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Susanta Saha, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 02.11.2017, declaring total income of 210,44,240/-, which was selected for complete scrutiny. Thereafter the notice u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued on 27.09.2018 & 16.05.2019 respectively, along with the questionnaire which were duly served upon

Ashoke Sen, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 50(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3021/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ashoke Sen Ito, Ward 50(1) Lawgical Consultants, 29D, Uttarapan Complex, Ds-Iv, Bentick Street, Unit-A, B &C, Maniktala Civic Centre, Kolkata- Vs. 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700001, 700054, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ayfps8468K Assessee By : Shri Ankit Jalan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Susanta Saha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jalan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Susanta Saha, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

notice u/s.143(2) of the Act to be issued in any of the three following forms :- ❖ Limited Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection ❖ Complete Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) ❖ Compulsory Manual Scrutiny 6. The ld. AR submitted that the notice is not bearing to any of the above forms prescribed

Sabapathi Chettiar Velammal, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Circle1, Tirunelveli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 811/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 68

M/s.Sivagami Jewellery. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed declaring total income of Rs.19,16,850/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee had recorded cash sales

Mehul Parekh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2306/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Ashok Parmar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 04/10/2018. Thereafter the case was selected for complete scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) as well as u/s. 142(1) were issued to the assessee. The assessee also submitted their reply and thereafter

Tirupathi Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1785/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Sahana T.H.M., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 144Section 194Section 24

furnished its return of income on 30th August 2018 declaring total income of ₹ 912,110. The above return of income was picked up for complete scrutiny for the reason of the offering of the income as income from house property. Notices were issued to the assessee however the assessee remained

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2763/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

India. Assessee filed its return of income on 17.03.2021, reporting total income at Rs.1941,20,24,320/-. Case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS on the following parameters - 1. ICDS Compliance and Adjustment 2. Capital Gains/Income on Sale of Property 3. Capital Gains/Income on Sale