“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

Chunilal Govind Vanik, Veraval vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

ITA 323/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

assessment year(A.Y.) 2019-20, on 11/09/2019, declaring total income of Rs. 1,28,78,330/- The assessee`s case was selected for complete scrutiny, on account of survey proceedings, carried out on 12.09.2018, at the business premises of the assessee. The Assessment was finalised

Geeta Devi Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO WD 1(4), Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 450/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Badri Lal Agarwal through Legal heir Smt. Geeta Devi G-5, Shyama Residency, Plot No. 7, Purander Ji Ka Bag Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ALGPA5194C अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. S. B. Natani, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख /

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

total income of Rs. 6,15,290/- after claiming of deduction of Rs. 10,000/- under Chapter VI-A. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS parameters thus notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 11.08.2018 and served upon the assessee. 3.1 As per information available

Surendra Pal Singh Sahni, Kota vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/JPR/2024[2005-06]Status: FixedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

Madkini Hydro Power Private Limited, Dehradun vs. Income Tax Officer- 4(3), Lucknow

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

ITA 228/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2018-19 Madkini Hydro Power Private V. The Income Tax Officer 4(3) Limited Lucknow Flat No.4, Ii Floor 3, Scindia House Delhi 110 001 Tan/Pan:Aaecm1420B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shalendera Kishore Singh, Adv. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 06 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shalendera Kishore Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 144Section 68

consideration on 31.10.2018, declaring total income at Nil, claiming Current Year Loss of Rs.29,00,388/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for the reasons "(1) Low income in comparison to high loans/advances/Investment in shares ITA No.228/LKW/2025 Page 2 of 13 appearing in balance

Mirza International Limited, Kanpur vs. DCIT Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur

The appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 35/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 40A(7)Section 80Section 92Section 92C

total income of Rs.94,32,14,140/- under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny assessment and, thereafter, during the course of assessment proceedings, reference under section 92CA(1) of the Act was made by the Assessing Officer

Prafulla Shantilal Kothari, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 7, Pune

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

ITA 922/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.922/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prafulla Shantilal Kothari, Vs. Acit, Circle-7, Pune. Flat No.1, Akshay Plaza, Ramnagar, Wadgaonsheri, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aahhp4593E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora, Shri Saukhya Lakade & Miss Riya Oswal Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per R. K. Panda, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.02.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Visakhapatnam [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Huf & Is Carrying On Business Of Online Trading In Lottery Tickets Under The Name & Style ‘J.K. Lottery’. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 24.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.51,25,350/-. The Case

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

style ‘J.K. Lottery’. It filed its return of income on 24.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.51,25,350/-. The case 2 was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee, in response ... 24/10/2017, declaring the total income as Rs 51,25,350/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS under the 'Complete scrutiny criteria. During the year under consideration, the assessee has shown profits and gains from business and profession and income from other sources. Statutory notices were issued

Antony Sunil, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(7), Chennai

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

ITA 815/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.815/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Antony Sunil, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 59, 11Th Trust Cross Street, Non Corporate Ward 1(7), Mandavelipakkam, Chennai 600 028. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Bxbps7987P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anandd Babunath, F.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 : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 415 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri Anandd Babunath, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 50CSection 55ASection 56(2)Section 69

that the assessee file return of income for AY 2017-18 admitting total income of ₹.5,50,830/- and the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Note under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 27.09.2018 and notices under section

Perumal Pillai Muthiah Pillai Sankaranarayanan, Srivilliputtur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Virudhunagar, Income Tax Office

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

ITA 478/CHNY/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.478/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Perumal Pillai Muthiah Pillai Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Sankaranarayanan, No. 1A, Income Tax, Krishnankoil, Vpm Nagar, Circle – 1, Srivilliputtur, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. Tamil Nadu 626 190. [Pan:Avkps6163K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.03.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 628 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

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

that the assessee file return of income for AY 2017-18 admitting total income of ₹.17,51,030/- and the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Note under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 30.08.2018 and notices under section

M/S. Shree Vijayalaxmi Souharda Sahakari Niyamita, Sirsi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sirsi

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

ITA 1997/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Respondent: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia

Section 234Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

During the A.Y., the assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs. 2,11,58,839/-. The AO selected the case of the assessee for complete scrutiny and the assessee also filed replies to the various notices issued and from the said reply, the AO had arrived an amount

Edwards Lifesciences (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6188/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailedwards Lifesciences (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor Commerz – Ii, International Business Park Oberoi Garden City, Goregaon (East), Off Western Express Highway Goregaon (East), ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400063 Pan : Aaacb4203F V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), ……………… Respondent Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, Mumbai - 400012 Assessee By : Ms. Chandni Shah Ms. Riddhi Maru Ms. Kinjal Patel Revenue By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni ShahFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92B

income on 26.02.2022 declaring a total income of ₹ 10,47,13,769/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected through CASS for complete scrutiny, inter alia, for the reason of high 5 risk international transactions. During the year under consideration, the assessee entered into following international transaction with

Surender Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 4 (1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 351/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

declaring income of Rs. 6,35,470/-. His return was processed under section 143(1)(a) on 28.06.2019. His case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the e-assessment Scheme, 2019 on two issues, namely refund claim and winning from Lottery/crossword puzzle/horse races. The Ld. Assessing Officer ("AO") served

Kissan Petro Oils Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle -13(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of appellant/assessee is allowed

ITA 5599/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Bikash Kumar Thakur on behalf of Shri Dinesh Chandra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

loss at Rs.7,38,44,274/- on 30.09.2015 which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. Notices under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 04.04.2016, notices under Section 142(1) dated 12.04.2016, 03.03.2017 and 01.08.2017 were issued

Income Tax Officer Ward-28(5), Civic Centre J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi vs. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed as above

ITA 1737/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 69ASection 69C

finding of the AO in Para 1 of point no. 3 of the assessment order that “The case of the assessee selected for complete scrutiny for the reason large cash deposit during demonetization period and abnormal increase in sales with decrease in profitability as compared to preceding previous year

G N Adgaonkar Jweles, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 660/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.660/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 5

income of 4 G N Adgaonkar Jewels Rs.1,48,890/- declared in the return for A.Y. 2017-18 furnished on 30.10.2017. Case selected for complete scrutiny for the reason “Abnormal increase in cash deposit during the demonetization period”. Valid notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act duly served

Netafim Agricultural Financing Agency Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 15(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 507/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 507/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Netafim Agricultural V/S. Acit, Circle 15(2)(1), Financing Agency Pvt. Ltd. बिाम Mumbai 308, Windfall, 3 Rd Floor, D Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor, Wing, Sahar Plaza Aayakar Bhavan, M K Complex, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai-400020 Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai-400059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcn7106J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Sanjeev Aditya राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Ms. Sujatha Iyanagar

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev AdityaFor Respondent: Ms. Sujatha Iyanagar

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

case are that the assessee filed its return declaring total income of Rs. 3,45,92,760/- on 31.10.2017. The case was selected for complete scrutiny for verification of the high-value receipt of cash deposit shown during P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2017-18 Netafim Agricultural Financing Agency

ACIT Circle 34(1), New Delhi vs. B.K. Sales Corporation, Mukherjee Nagar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4034/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaacit, Vs. B. K. Sales Corporation, 804, 8Th Floor, E2 Block, Circle-34(1), New Delhi Civic Centre, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaafb4846K

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)

reasons given in the limited scrutiny parameters, provided he obtains necessary approval from his Pr. Commissioner and proceeds to convert the case into a complete scrutiny case. We have also noted that there exists a catena of cases stipulating that an AO is to restrict his enquiry and consequent addition ... recorded for expanding the scope of limited scrutiny, no approval was taken from the PCIT for conversion of the limited scrutiny case to a complete scrutiny case and the order sheet was maintained very perfunctorily. Further, the CBDT has recorded that this gave rise to a very strong suspicion

Ayesha Steels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2563/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaasstt. Year : 2017-18 Ayesha Steels (P) Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), F-319, Old Seema Puri, Civic Centre, Delhi Delhi – 110 095 (Pan: Aafca7445K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2025 Order Per Mahavir Singh, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

that AO has passed the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act for AY 2017-18 after making various additions in the complete scrutiny assessment conducted in the case of the assessee. The AO noted that there were substantial cash deposits made by the appellant during the demonetization

Mr. Anil Jagannath Kedar, Solapur vs. Ward 1(2), Solapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 567/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.567/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Anil Jagannath Kedar, V The Income Tax Officer, At Post-Wasud, Sangola, S Ward-1(2), Solapur. Dist – Solapur – 413307. Maharashtra. Pan : Asvpk0584A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna & Shri Aakash Parakh – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Rajesh Haladkar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 25/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-7, Kolkata Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Y.2017-18, Dated 24.01.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S.144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 19.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Appeal

Section 144Section 250

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

Swabhumi Foundation, North Twenty Four Parganas vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Exemption, Kolkata

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

ITA 771/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Respondent: Shri Miraz D. Shah, AR

Section 11Section 13(3)Section 250

filed its return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 27.10.2018, declaring total income as Nil. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued, which were duly ‘Ss Page |4 ITA No. 771/KOL/2025 Swabhumi Foundation

Puncha Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, Bankura vs. ACIT, Ward 3(1), Bankura

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

ITA 661/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha CIT(DR) &

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 80P

Society. It filed its return of in- come on 09.03.2022, declaring total income as Rs. Nil. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued, but the assessee did not respond to the notices issued