← 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

C G Marketing Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 134/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sarvesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 80G

filed its return of income on 12.12.2020 declaring total income of Rs.12,90,54,500/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and accordingly statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income 2 Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Adesh Tulshiram Mhatre, District Raigad vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 2385/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar GundherFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 206CSection 234ASection 270ASection 69Section 69C

filed his return of income on 20.03.2021 declaring total income of Rs.18,05,510/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the National Faceless E-assessment Scheme on the following issues: “Low income from TCS receipts-Mining and quarrying (Total payment on which

M/S Durga Automotives Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri vs. DCIT, Cir.-1, Siliguri

ITA 675/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarιτα No.675/Kol/2024

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 250

assessment proceedings in a widespread manner from this financial year. 2. The three formats of notice(s) are: Limited Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) Complete Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) Compulsory Manual Scrutiny The revised format of 143(2) notice(s) with a note on benefits & Procedures of 'E- Proceeding

Deohara Co-Operative Cane Development Union Limited, Bijnor vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Bijnor

In the result, appeals of the assessee in Appeal Nos

ITA 2852/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2851/Del/2024 (Assessment Year 2018-19) The Income Tax Seohara Co-Operative Cane Officer, Development Union Vs. Ward-3(1), Limited, 34-Station Road, Nazibabad-1, Up Seohara, Bijnor-246746. Pan-Aabas4970K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gurneet, Adv. Department By Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Three Separate Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) & All Are Dated 23.3.2024 For Ay 2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). Seohara Co-Operative Cane Development Union India Vs. Ito 2. As All The Three Appeals Are Related To One Assessment Year Against Three Seperate Orders Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 144B & Consequential Penalty Order U/S 270A & 271B Of The Act, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Filed By The Assessee On Account Of Delay In Filing The Respective Appeals. Since The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Relating To Dismissal Of Appeals Without Condoning The Delay In Filing, Thus All The Three Appeals Are Taken Together & Disposed Off By A Single Order.

Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 271BSection 44A

that appellant is a co-operative society and filed its return of income on 30.03.2019 declaring NIL income. The assessment was taken up for complete scrutiny and the AO passed the order on 27.05.2021 u/s 144, on the basis of material available on record, wherein the income of the assessee

Seohara Co-Operative Cane Development Union Limited, Bijnor vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Bijnor

In the result, appeals of the assessee in Appeal Nos

ITA 2851/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2851/Del/2024 (Assessment Year 2018-19) The Income Tax Seohara Co-Operative Cane Officer, Development Union Vs. Ward-3(1), Limited, 34-Station Road, Nazibabad-1, Up Seohara, Bijnor-246746. Pan-Aabas4970K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gurneet, Adv. Department By Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Three Separate Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) & All Are Dated 23.3.2024 For Ay 2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). Seohara Co-Operative Cane Development Union India Vs. Ito 2. As All The Three Appeals Are Related To One Assessment Year Against Three Seperate Orders Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 144B & Consequential Penalty Order U/S 270A & 271B Of The Act, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Filed By The Assessee On Account Of Delay In Filing The Respective Appeals. Since The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Relating To Dismissal Of Appeals Without Condoning The Delay In Filing, Thus All The Three Appeals Are Taken Together & Disposed Off By A Single Order.

Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 271BSection 44A

that appellant is a co-operative society and filed its return of income on 30.03.2019 declaring NIL income. The assessment was taken up for complete scrutiny and the AO passed the order on 27.05.2021 u/s 144, on the basis of material available on record, wherein the income of the assessee

Seohara Co-Operative Cane Development Union Limited, Bijnor vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Bijnor

In the result, appeals of the assessee in Appeal Nos

ITA 2850/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2851/Del/2024 (Assessment Year 2018-19) The Income Tax Seohara Co-Operative Cane Officer, Development Union Vs. Ward-3(1), Limited, 34-Station Road, Nazibabad-1, Up Seohara, Bijnor-246746. Pan-Aabas4970K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gurneet, Adv. Department By Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Three Separate Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) & All Are Dated 23.3.2024 For Ay 2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). Seohara Co-Operative Cane Development Union India Vs. Ito 2. As All The Three Appeals Are Related To One Assessment Year Against Three Seperate Orders Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 144B & Consequential Penalty Order U/S 270A & 271B Of The Act, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Filed By The Assessee On Account Of Delay In Filing The Respective Appeals. Since The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Relating To Dismissal Of Appeals Without Condoning The Delay In Filing, Thus All The Three Appeals Are Taken Together & Disposed Off By A Single Order.

Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 271BSection 44A

that appellant is a co-operative society and filed its return of income on 30.03.2019 declaring NIL income. The assessment was taken up for complete scrutiny and the AO passed the order on 27.05.2021 u/s 144, on the basis of material available on record, wherein the income of the assessee

Roopa Rana Infrastructures Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 19(1), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3474/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270Section 37Section 37(1)

return of income on 30-09-2019 declaring total income at Rs. 60,340/-. The case of the assessee company was selected for complete scrutiny under the E-assessment on the following issues: (i) Expenses Relating to entities not Registered under GST Notices

Bhoopram Sharma, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1, Panchkula

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

ITA 860/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rishab Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

income tax return on 04.08.2017, declaring an income of Rs. 2,86,490/- for the assessment year 2017-18. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS due to large cash deposits made during the demonetization period. A statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Income

Punkaaj Kaalay, Pune vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax Act, CPC

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

ITA 1890/PUN/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2021-2022

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 272ASection 272A(1)Section 54

filed his return of income on 30.12.2021 declaring total income at Rs.7,45,320/-. The assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny for the reason Capital Gains/Deduction Claimed. The Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide his order dated 09.12.2022 thereby making

Singur Thana Lspa Co-Operative Marketing Society Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Hooghly

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 970/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.968-970/Kol/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / A.Yrs. : 2014-2015, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Singur Thana Lspa Vs Ito, Ward-23(2), Hooghly Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, C/O S.N.Ghosh&Associates,Advs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aabas0029 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh & Sarnath Ghosh, Advocates राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Ms. Madhumita Sas, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders All Dated 15.03.2023, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2014-2015, 2017- 2018 & 2018-2019. 2. As Per The Office Record, It Is Found That All The Three Appeals Of The Assessee Are Filed Belatedly By 120 Days Each. Looking To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, We Condone The Delay Of 120 Days Each In Fling All The Three Appeals & The Appeals Are Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Somnath GhoshFor Respondent: Ms. Madhumita Sas, Addl.CIT
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 8. The ld. AR submitted that the notice is not bearing to any of the above forms prescribed

Singur Thana Lspa Co-Operative Marketing Society Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Hooghly

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 969/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.968-970/Kol/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / A.Yrs. : 2014-2015, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Singur Thana Lspa Vs Ito, Ward-23(2), Hooghly Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, C/O S.N.Ghosh&Associates,Advs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aabas0029 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh & Sarnath Ghosh, Advocates राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Ms. Madhumita Sas, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders All Dated 15.03.2023, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2014-2015, 2017- 2018 & 2018-2019. 2. As Per The Office Record, It Is Found That All The Three Appeals Of The Assessee Are Filed Belatedly By 120 Days Each. Looking To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, We Condone The Delay Of 120 Days Each In Fling All The Three Appeals & The Appeals Are Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Somnath GhoshFor Respondent: Ms. Madhumita Sas, Addl.CIT
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 8. The ld. AR submitted that the notice is not bearing to any of the above forms prescribed

Singur Thana Lspa Co-Operative Marketing Society Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Hooghly

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 968/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.968-970/Kol/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / A.Yrs. : 2014-2015, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Singur Thana Lspa Vs Ito, Ward-23(2), Hooghly Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, C/O S.N.Ghosh&Associates,Advs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aabas0029 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh & Sarnath Ghosh, Advocates राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Ms. Madhumita Sas, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders All Dated 15.03.2023, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2014-2015, 2017- 2018 & 2018-2019. 2. As Per The Office Record, It Is Found That All The Three Appeals Of The Assessee Are Filed Belatedly By 120 Days Each. Looking To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, We Condone The Delay Of 120 Days Each In Fling All The Three Appeals & The Appeals Are Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Somnath GhoshFor Respondent: Ms. Madhumita Sas, Addl.CIT
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 8. The ld. AR submitted that the notice is not bearing to any of the above forms prescribed

Selvi, Trichy vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Trichy

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

ITA 119/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 119/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ms. Selvi, The Income Tax Officer, 30, North Street, Ward 1(2), Rockfort, Vs. Trichy. Trichy – 620 002. Pan: Aljps 2284C (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri P. Thangaraj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 19.11.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- I. The Order Of The Learned Assessment Officer Is Against The Law, Weightage Of Evidence & All Probabilities Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri P. Thangaraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 ON 30.03.2018 admitting a total income of Rs.3,14,070/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for the reason that the cash deposit during the year and abnormal increase in cash deposited during demonetisation period as compared

Chirag Agencies, Davangere vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Davanagere

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 1683/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 68

filed its return of income on 30.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.60,75,230/-. This case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for complete scrutiny. The reason for selection of case for scrutiny is “Large Value Cash deposited during demonetisation”. Accordingly, a notices were issued to the assessee and assessee

Innocent Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 12(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 1236/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 243(3)Section 250Section 254(1)

verification of fact. The assessment in case of assessee was completed under section 243(3) on 28.12.2016. During the assessment, the AO made complete scrutiny including in the issue of 2 Innocent Infrastructure Private Limited unsecured loan. On satisfaction of AO no addition in the assessment order passed

Sh. Mahesh Kumar Dhariwal, Jhalawar vs. ITO, Ward-Jhalawar, Jhalawar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1406/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, C.A., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Anup Singh, ADDL. CIT, Ld. DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 145Section 250Section 68

declaring total income at Rs. 7, 09,230/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. During the year under consideration the assessee has deposited Rs. 1, 16, 66,320/- between 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. Out of total

Daya Ram, Gurgaon vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2268/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwaldaya Ram, Vs. Pcit, Village Patauda Khera, Rohtak Po Patauda, Distt-Jhajjar, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Avrpr0237L Assessee By : Shri Jai Bhagwan Saini, Adv Revenue By: Shri Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Jai Bhagwan Saini, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle 1, Nungambakkam Chennai vs. Sify Technologies Limited, Taramani Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2889/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1458, 1950 & 2889/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Limited, Income Tax/Acit, Ii Floor, Tidel Park No. 4, Ttt1 Large Taxpayer Unit Circle 1, Taramani S.O., Taramani, Chennai. Chennai 600 113. [Pan:Aaacs9032R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 19.02.2024, 07.08.2023 & 08.08.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate

return of income declaring income of ₹.98,53,74,050/- and the case of the 3 I.T.A. Nos.1458, 1950 & 2889/Chny/24 assessee was selected for complete scrutiny. After examining the details furnished by the assessee against statutory notices, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has shown an amount

Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Ltu 1 Chennai, Nungambakkam vs. Sify Technologies Limited, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1950/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1458, 1950 & 2889/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Limited, Income Tax/Acit, Ii Floor, Tidel Park No. 4, Ttt1 Large Taxpayer Unit Circle 1, Taramani S.O., Taramani, Chennai. Chennai 600 113. [Pan:Aaacs9032R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 19.02.2024, 07.08.2023 & 08.08.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate

return of income declaring income of ₹.98,53,74,050/- and the case of the 3 I.T.A. Nos.1458, 1950 & 2889/Chny/24 assessee was selected for complete scrutiny. After examining the details furnished by the assessee against statutory notices, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has shown an amount

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Sify Technologies Limited, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1458/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1458, 1950 & 2889/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Limited, Income Tax/Acit, Ii Floor, Tidel Park No. 4, Ttt1 Large Taxpayer Unit Circle 1, Taramani S.O., Taramani, Chennai. Chennai 600 113. [Pan:Aaacs9032R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 19.02.2024, 07.08.2023 & 08.08.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate

return of income declaring income of ₹.98,53,74,050/- and the case of the 3 I.T.A. Nos.1458, 1950 & 2889/Chny/24 assessee was selected for complete scrutiny. After examining the details furnished by the assessee against statutory notices, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has shown an amount