“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

Anita Garg, Hapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(4), Hapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4053/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4053/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Anita Garg Income Tax Officer, Hapur, Vs. Ward 2(3)(4), Santosh Garhi, Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Jareeb Kirana Store, Teachers Colony, Near Kms School, Bulandshahar, Hapur, Rampura, Pilkhuwa, Uttar Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaypg2767Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 119Section 143(2)

that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act issued to the assessee did not .specify whether it was a limited scrutiny or a complete scrutiny or a compulsory manual scrutiny. The Id. AR submitted that the CBDT has issued specifically provided 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

Rakesh Kumar Goel, New Rajdhani Enclave vs. CIT, NFAC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3378/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalrakesh Kumar Goel, Cit, 289/9, Katra Pedan, Nfac. Tilak Bazar, Delhi-110006. Vs. Pan-Aaepg7376H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A) In Short], In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi- 16/10301/2018-19 Dated 11.05.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2016- 17 Is Arising Out From The Order Of Assessing Officer Dated 28.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 250

Assessment Year 2016-17 was filed on 16.10.2016 declaring total income of Rs.1,86,81,750/-. The case was selected under CASS for complete scrutiny after considering the submissions made by the assessee. Total addition of Rs.4,17,79,999/- was made to the total income of the assessee. Against

Vinay Kumar Jaiswal, Surajpur vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur

ITA 363/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 363/Rpr/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Kumar Gupta, CA and ShriFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iv)Section 68Section 87

along with the audit report in Form 3CB and Form 3CD. The case of the assessee thereafter was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on account of following issues: (i) Unsecured Loans. (ii) Excess contribution to Provident Fund, Superannuation Fund or Gratuity Fund. 4. Accordingly

Amar Brothers Global P.Ltd, Kanpur vs. AO Circle-1(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 175/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.175/Lkw/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Amar Brothers Global Pvt Ltd V. Dcit Circle-2(1)(1) 87/112, Kalpi Road, Kanpur- Vaibhav Bhawan, 802003. 15/295-A, Civil Lines, Kanpur-208001. Pan:Aaica6776A अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02 07 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 29 07 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 37

limited scrutiny and there being no approval obtained from the competent authority nor there being any order for converting the limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny, the assessment framed is bad in law and be quashed. Page 2 of 7 3. Because the assessment framed u/s 143(3) without following ... expenses claimed be allowed.” 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case, the case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment. A notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee

Leayan Global Pvt.Ltd, Kanpur vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(3)(1), Kanpur

ITA 206/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 14A

duly incorporated under the Companies Act has been engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of leather goods. The case was selected for complete scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny System (CASS). Accordingly, a notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) dated

Kamlesh Vishandas Mirani, Ahmedabad vs. Ward 5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1986/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

which was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act (Act). The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny, however, the assessee failed to comply to notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. Upon scrutiny of case records, the Assessing Officer noted

Kailashchandra Haumanprasad Sugla, Solapur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Solapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1555/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1555/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kailashchandra Haumanprasad V The Income Tax Officer, Sugla, S Ward-1(1), Solapur. 45/15, Samrat Chowk, Budhwar Peth, Prabhakar Nagar H/S, Solapur-413001. Maharashtra. Pan: Ahsps3244B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-3, Chennai Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16Dated 12.10.2023, Emanating From Order U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 26.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 272A(1)(c)Section 41(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

CASS to verify the point of purchase of property, however learned Assessing officer has made various other additions without converting the same into a complete scrutiny and it appears that he has not obtained necessary sanction for same therefore assessment order passed is bad in law. Your appellant prays

M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8(1), Ltu-II, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 601/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(iia)

ought to have appreciated that the appellant has not merely submitted the books of accounts before the AO, whereas a complete scrutiny has been done, wherein the issues / addition made in the reassessment order were already dealt in or examined, hence the Explanation 1 to Section 147 is not applicable

Manipal Global Education Services Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 976/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Prajakta Thakur, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

assessee company filed its return of income on 30/11/2018 declaring a total income of Rs. Nil. The return of income was selected for complete scrutiny for various reasons and therefore the notice under section 143 (2) of the act was issued on 22/9/2019 and further notice under section

Manipal Hospitals Pvt. Ltd (Formerly Known As Columbia Asia Hospitals Pvt. Ltd), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 722/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Prajakta Thakur, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Manipal Education and Medical Group India Pvt. Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 721/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Prajakta Thakur, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Manipal Education and Medical Group India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 720/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Prajakta Thakur, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Manipal Education and Medical Group India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 719/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Prajakta Thakur, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Veerendra Basavaraj Koujalagi, Belagavi vs. PCIT Hubballi, Hubballi

ITA 103/PAN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavankumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 103/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Veerendra Basavaraj Koujalagi C/O. Shri Laxmi Complex, Sadashiv Nagar, Belgavi-590001 Pan : Agrpk3086D . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hubali. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Shivanand Halbhavi [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/07/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Assessee’S Captioned Appeal Impugns Din & Order 1063626985(1) Dt. 29/03/2024 Passed By Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hubali [‘Ld. Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which Sought To Revise Order Of Assessment Dt. 26/04/2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr Shivanand Halbhavi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

present appeal loops round the powers of revisionary authority to revise an assessment order passed in pursuance of limited scrutiny assessment as against complete scrutiny. 3. Briefly stated facts born out of case records and as solidified by the rival parties are that; the assessee is a resident individual engaged ... issues mentioned in Limited Scrutiny. ⁠4. The learned PCIT is not justified in travelling beyond jurisdiction by converting into a Limited Scrutiny to Complete Scrutiny. 7. In the course of physical hearing, the Ld. AR Mr Halbhavi reiterated assessee’s solitary contention & submissions as were made in the revisionary ITAT

Soleone Tradelinks Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 603/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Malarkodi R., Sr. DR

Section 144

appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the case of Soleone Tradelinks Private Limited (the assessee) was selected for complete scrutiny under the e-Assessment Scheme, 2019, based on discrepancies such as mismatch in tax credit, consistent losses despite large fund inflows, and low income declared

Bastuhara Sahayata Samiti, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 444/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 444/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Bastuhara Sahayata Samiti,……………….…Appellant 27/1B, Bidhan Sarani, Srimini Market, Kolkata-700006, West Bengal [Pan:Aaatb7422R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-1(2), (Exemption), Kolkata, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsian, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

income for the assessment year 2016-17 on 22.09.2016 through CPC declaring NIL gross total income vide e-filing. The case was selected for Complete Scrutiny through CASS. Notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act dated 14.07.2017 was served upon the assessee. Requisitions were made vide notice

M/S.Mahogany Logistics Services Pvt. Ltd., Madurai vs. PCIT, Madurai-1

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

ITA 1631/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1631/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mahogany Logistics Services Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax-1, 10, Jawahar Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai. Madurai 625 002. [Pan:Aafcd8781R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Madurai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company [Earlier Known As M/S. Drsr Logistics Services Private Limited] Filed Its Return Of Income For The Ay 2018-19 Claiming Loss Of ₹.31,28,98,436/- Under 2

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36Section 37Section 40

claiming loss of ₹.31,28,98,436/- under 2 I.T.A. No.1631/Chny/24 section 139(9) of the Act. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for the reason to verify the low income in comparison to high loans/investments in shares, lower amount of disallowance under section ... section 37(1) of the Act. He referred to the assessment order and submits that the Assessing Officer, inspite of selecting the case under complete scrutiny conducted only enquiries with reference to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. He submits that the decision in the case of S.A. Builders

Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 223/VIZ/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 8O

declaring a total income of Rs.1,19,26,63,420/-. After processing the return of income U/s. 143(1), the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and accordingly statutory notices U/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee calling for the information. The assessee

S R Agro Tech, Behror vs. ITO, Ward, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1304/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234BSection 40Section 69A

assessment year 2017-18 had been filed by the assessee on 31-10-2017. The case of the assessee was selected under complete Scrutiny through CASS with remarks’’(i) cash deposit during the demonetization period and (ii) lower amount disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia)’’. Notice

Imran Azad Wallani, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-8(1), Signature Towers, Hyderabad

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

ITA 720/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 17(3)(i)

left the said employment on 17th November 2017. The return of income of the assessee for Assessment Year 2018–19 was selected for complete scrutiny. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was served on the assessee on 28.09.2019. During the course