← 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

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Noida vs. Ajay Goel, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1459/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 54F

return of income on 15.02.2021 for the AY 2020-21 declaring an income of Rs.12,50,39,770. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the ITA No.1459/DEL/2023 Act’) were issued

Shri Basaveshwar Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mudalagi vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 78/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.78/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2020-21) Shri Basaveshwar Urban Vs. Pr.Cit, Co_Op Credit Society C.R.Building, Mudalagi, Navanagar, Belagavi-591312, Hubli-580025, Karnataka Karnataka. Pan .No.Aaaas6800M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Saidappa Gadadi.Ar Revenue By Shri.Captain Pradeep Arya.Cit.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 11.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 14.08.2025 Pronouncement Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) Hubli Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assesse Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Revision Order Passed By The Pr.Cit Set Aside The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is A Cooperative Credit Society & Has Filed The Return Of Income For The A.Y 2020-21 On 04.01.2021 Disclosing A Total Income Of

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

page 3 to 10 of the paper book emphasizing that the AO has called for the details in respect of complete scrutiny under CASS to verify the issues of (i) High Creditors/Liabilities (ii) Investments/Advances/Loans and (iii) Deduction from total income under chapter VI-A. The assessee has also received notice ... action of the Pr. CIT is not acceptable. Whereas the AO has applied the mind and accepted the assessee’s submissions in the complete scrutiny in respect of interest income on deposits with the cooperative banks. We rely on the decision of the Honble High Court of Bombay

The Dhanashree Multipurpose Co-Operative Society Limited, Belgaum vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 119/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2020-21 The Dhanashree Multipurpose Co-Operative Society, Ltd. 722/1, Angol Road, Vidya Nagar, Belgaum-590006 Pan:Aaaad0350R . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

income of ₹13,54,350/-. The case of the assessee vide notice dt. 29/06/2021 issued u/s 143(2) of the Act was selected for complete scrutiny to verify issues like (i) high creditors/liabilities & (ii) deduction claimed u/c VI-A of the Act. In response thereto the assessee vide letter

M/S Jinabakul Forge Pvt Ltd, B K Kangrali Industrial Area vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, 1, Belgaum

The appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 310/PAN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Siddesh Gaddi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)

year under consideration on 21/12/20220 declaring total income of ₹18,76,27,060/-. The case of the assessee company was selected for complete scrutiny and the consequential assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed wherein two additions were made viz; (i) one on account of mismatch of income

Guru Kripa Associates, Bareilly vs. Pr. CIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 97/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 263

have the option to file your submission from the e-filing portal using the link: incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in (i) Case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny for the year under consideration. (ii) On perusal of assessment record, it has been observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee ... order passed by the AO being considered erroneous as pointed out in the show cause notice also: (i) The case was picked up for complete scrutiny to examine the Cash deposits made by assessee during demonetization period on the basis of information that large value of cash was deposited during

Roopa Lamba, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 537/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

beyond his jurisdiction and more particularly, on account of the fact that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and not complete scrutiny. 5. Further, it was submitted that the accounts of the assessee are duly audited and as far as the nature of payment are concerned

The Lunawada Urban Co Op Credit Society Limited, Mahisagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Lunawada

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 809/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

total income of Rs.1,77,000/- and claimed deduction of Rs. 11,78,122/- u/s. 80P of the Act. The case was selected for complete scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act thereby disallowing deduction/s. 80P to the extent of Rs. 11,78,126/- 4. Being

Karmaveer Bhausaheb Hiray Nashik Jilha Krishi Audyogiksahakari Sangh Ltd. Krishi Bhavab, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Nashik

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

ITA 628/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Charuhas Dwarkanath UpasaniFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(4)

return was processed u/s. 143(1) on 20.04.2021 accepting the returned income. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS with the reason "Large business loss set off against other heads of income and deduction from total income under chapter-VI A". Accordingly, statutory notice

Bhandari Associates, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 2, Pune

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

ITA 1227/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada S IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

income on 27.10.2018 declaring current year’s loss of Rs.1,05,12,523/- and total income at Nil. The case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues: 2 S. No. Issues i. Investments/Advances/Loans ii. Contract Receipts or Fees iii. Unsecured Loans ... Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) without due application of mind. He noted that even though the case was selected for complete scrutiny on the issue of 4 unsecured loans, however, the Assessing Officer has not properly addressed the issue of creditworthiness of lenders and genuineness

Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 664/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Aug 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 250

showing total income of ₹75,85,53,330/- and claiming a refund of ₹131,83,79,750/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') on 9 issues and in compliance to the notices issued, the assessee furnished the requisite details

Manatec Electronics Private Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward 4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 83/CHNY/2025[2018-9]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.83/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Manatec Electronics Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, 19A, Abinav Kailash, Corporate Ward 4(1), Velachery Road, Little Mount, Chennai. Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. [Pan:Aafcm1685D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Sandhyaarthi, C.A. & Ms. Ranjini, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. As Per Concise Grounds Of Appeal, Ground Nos. 1 & 2 Raised By The Assessee Is General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

For Appellant: Ms. Sandhyaarthi, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 35Section 37Section 37(1)

return of income for AY 2018-19 declaring income at (-) ₹.76,53,449/- on 24.10.2018. The return filed by the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny and the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act on 22.09.2019. Notice under section

Devngi Jewellwers Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 672/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Accountant Mmber आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Devngi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, 109 -110, Shreyas Diamond Centre, Circle – 1(1)(1), Mini Bazar, Varachha Road, Surat Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcd3227A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

income for the AY 2017-18 on 30.10.2017, declaring therein total income at Rs.31,12,100/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny ITA No.672/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Devngi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. under CASS. The assessee had maintained five bank accounts during the year under consideration. There were cash deposits

Sew Foundation, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 499/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.499/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sew Foundation Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad (Exemptions), Ward 1(4) Pan:Aaats7433H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate V Siva Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vinodh Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27/01/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)/Addl/Jcit(A)-1 Coimbatore, For The A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A)/Addl/Jcit(A)-5 Coimbatore, 27-01-2025 Is Erroneous, Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: Advocate V Siva KumarFor Respondent: : Shri Vinodh Kannan, Sr. AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 144Section 80G

declared corpus donation of Rs.28,73,388/- and admitted gross receipts other than corpus donation receipts at Rs.1540/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. However, there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer

K.P.Ramaswamy, Rasipuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Namakkal

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 702/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:702/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 K.P.Ramaswamy, The Income Tax Officer, 6-A, Building Society Road, Vs. Ward-2 No.5 Voc Nagar, Rasipuram Tk, Namakkal. Namakkal - 637 408. [Pan: Achpr-5024-Q] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Sri Krishna, C.A (Virtual) प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Sri Krishna, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

admitting a total income of Rs.5,60,110/-. The same was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. The assessee’s case was selected for ‘Complete Scrutiny’ under CASS and notice was issued u/s.143(2) of the Act on 30.08.2018. 5. During the assessment proceedings AO found that the assessee ... account of Pension of MLA, House property, Business, other sources along with the Agricultural income of Rs.17,75,635/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer has passed order by treating cash deposit made during the demonetisation of Rs.14,87,000/- and an agricultural income

Shreeji Ceramic Industries, Morbi vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 266/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. A.L.Saini, Am & Diesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.266/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Shreeji Ceramic Industries, The Principal Commissioner Of Vs. 8/A National Highway, Lalpar Income Tax – 1, Morbi - 363642 Rajkot "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfs8846B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit (Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/07/2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rajkot – 1 [In Short, “The Ld. Pcit”], Dated 30.03.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows.

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 263o

learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1erred in stating that the assessment order u/s 143(3) was under complete scrutiny although it was under ‘limited scrutiny’ as evident from the notice u/s. 143(2) read with the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act. 3. The learned Principal ... that the assessment has been initialized on ground of limited scrutiny. Ld. PCIT has incorrectly stated that the assessment completed was a complete scrutiny. From this factual position CA has arrived on inference that first revision order u/s. 263, dtd. 30.03.2021 passed by Ld. PCIT is on wrong footing. Therefore

Ayyanthole Panchayath Service Cooperative Bank Limited 471, Kariyattukara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 209/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(4)

case for narration of facts. ITA No.208/Coch/2025- The assessee fled its return of income for AY 2017-18 and the case was selected for complete scrutiny Notices under Sections 143(2) and142(1) were issued. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) by denying the claim

Ayyanthole Panchayath Service Cooperative Bank Limited 471, Kariyattukara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 208/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(4)

Service Cooperative Bank Ltd 4. ITA No.208/Coch/2025- The assessee fled its return of income for AY 2017-18 and the case was selected for complete scrutiny Notices under Sections 143(2) and142(1) were issued. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) by denying the claim

Ayyanthole Panchayath Service Cooperative Bank Limited 471, Kariyattukara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Thrissur

ITA 198/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)

case for narration of facts. ITA No.208/Coch/2025- The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2017-18 and the case was selected for complete scrutiny Notices under Sections 143(2) and142(1) were issued. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) by denying the claim

Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, Jaipur vs. ACIT Cen Cir 1, C-Scheme, Jaipur

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

ITA 538/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Tetuka, Adv., ARFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

year under consideration. After filling of return of income the case of the assessee selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS under "Complete Scrutiny" and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 10.08.2018 through ITBA-portal which was duly served 7 Rajendra Kumar Agrawal vs. ACIT upon ... appellant is not acceptable as AO has categorically sought for details proofs of fresh unsecured loans as needed to reconcile during the complete scrutiny and there is no reason on the part of the appellant not to explain the same as admitted in the appellant books of accounts/certified

Prem Devi Baid, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(5), Jaipur, Ncrb, Statue Circle, C-Scheme

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Dheeraj Borad, CA. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 14ASection 250Section 57Section 68

Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) through CASS, initially for limited scrutiny, but later converted to complete scrutiny. Notices under section 142(1) were issued, and compliance was made through submissions and relevant documents. 6. During the assessment proceedings, AO noticed that the assessee