← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad vs. Metarolls Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Jalna

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 932/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: S/Shri Adv Rahul Kaul, CA AnandFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.39,48,76,390/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee, in response to which the AR of the assessee appeared before

Runwal Enterprises Limited, Sion East vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6915/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhrirunwal Enterprises Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Cc-4(1), Mumbai 4Th Floor, Runwal & बनाम Kautilya Bhavan, Omkar Square, Off Eastern Mumbai-400051 Highway, Sion East, Mumbai-400022 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaicp4839P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Mr. Pradeep RawalFor Respondent: Shri. R. R. Makwana
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 40A(7)Section 43B

Assessing Officer mechanically followed the erroneous and mechanical computerized processing, that stood negated during scrutiny assessment proceedings. (c) The case was selected for complete scrutiny, inter alia, on the issue of Disallowance u/s 40A(7) (Gratuity provision) as per notice under section 143(2) of the Act already issued

Engineering Professional Co. Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. PCIT-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 541/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.541/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit -1, 444, Royal Arcade, Opp. Sarthana Zoo, Surat Varachha Road, Near Sarthana Jakatnaka, Surat – 395006, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabce0313Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 13/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/02/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

that the assessee filed its return of income for AY.2018-19 on 13.03.2019, declaring total income of Rs.30,27,080/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny on the issues of “refund claim, contract receipts or fees and income from house property”. The Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) issued notice ... Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) of the Revenue supported the order of the PCIT. He submitted that the assessment order was picked up for completed scrutiny on the issue of refund claim, contract receipts or fees and income from house property. The AO has passed a cryptic order without discussing

Krishan Pal Singh HUF, Jaipur vs. Assessing Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1268/JPR/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

For Appellant: Shri N. K. Agarwal, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28

Supreme Court. 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the the case of the assessee was selected for Complete Scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 for the reasons '1. Income from Other Sources 2. Refund Claim'. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued

Sanjay Lunia, Ajmer vs. ITO WD-2(1), Ajmer

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

ITA 767/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 69A

submission made by assessee that once, Id.AO made enquiries on the issues outside the scope of Limited Scrutiny (without converting the same to Complete Scrutiny), which is beyond his jurisdiction, assessment order so passed itself becomes bad in law. Appellant therefore prays that assessment order passed by ld.AO deserves ... confined to issues under Limited Scrutiny and questionnaires, enquiry, investigation etc. would be restricted to such issues. Only upon conversion of case to Complete Scrutiny after following the procedure outlined above, the AO may examine the additional issues besides the issue(s) involved in Limited Scrutiny. The AO shall also

Gujarat Council of Science City, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(Exemp), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1822/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 2(15)Section 250

Income Tax Act, 1961 and enjoyed exemption and deduction under Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny on ITA No.1822/Ahd/2024 & S.A. No.1/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gujarat Council of Science City vs. DCIT Page 3 of 8 the issue of receipt of voluntary donation ... processed u/s.143(1) on the total Income of Rs.98,89,60,675/- by disallowing exemptions claimed u/s.11 & 12. Thereafter, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. 2.1 During the course of assessment proceedings the AO claimed to have issued various notices from time to time which remain

Natco Pharma Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 853/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri A V Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 35Section 41Section 80Section 92CSection 92D(3)

filed it’s return of income on 22.01.2021 declaring income of Rs.429,85,54,380/-. The case of the assessee company was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS on account of following reasons : a. Deduction from total income [Chapter-VIA] [Business ITR]. b. Large difference in the opening stock

Sarbinder Singh Bindra, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-47(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7591/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalsarbinder Singh Bindra Asst. Cit, 362, 2Nd Floor, Circle-47(1), Naya Katra, Chandni Vs. Delhi. Chowk, Delhi-110006. Pan-Aaepb2783P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154

Instruction No.20/2015 dated 29.12.2015, as under (page 130-131 of PB II): (a) The AO while forming reasonable view of converting "limited scrutiny" to "complete scrutiny" was to ensure that 'there exists credible material/information', 'absence of suspicion, conjecture, unreliable source' and 'direct nexus between the material and formation ... view', specified in para 3 of Instruction No.5/2016. (b) (b) Only upon conversion of case into 'complete scrutiny' after following the procedure Le with the approval of Pr. CIT/CIT, the AO may examine the additional issues besides the issue(s) involved in 'Limited Scrutiny' [para 4 of Instruction No.5/2016

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune vs. Advik Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1330/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Rohit S. Tapadiya
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)Section 80GSection 80I

Rs.42,99,14,760/- after making adjustment of Rs.1,11,030/- to the total income of the appellant. Thereafter, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) were issued along with questionnaire. In response to the said notices, the assessee company furnished ... through the AO, given the fact that the AO had not granted the said deductions in the computation and the case was selected for complete scrutiny. 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the forex gain

Advik Hi Tech Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Dy.Comm.of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune, Akurdi Pune

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1158/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1158/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Advik Hi Tech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Gat No.357, Plot No.99, Village- Kharabwadi, Tal.- Khed, Chakan- 410501. Pan : Aacca3106E Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1330/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Vs. Advik Hi Tech Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.357, Plot No.99, Village- Kharabwadi, Tal.- Khed, Chakan- 410501. Pan : Aacca3106E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Shah & Shri Rohit S. Tapadiya Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2023 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)Section 80GSection 80I

Rs.42,99,14,760/- after making adjustment of Rs.1,11,030/- to the total income of the appellant. Thereafter, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) were issued along with questionnaire. In response to the said notices, the assessee company furnished ... through the AO, given the fact that the AO had not granted the said deductions in the computation and the case was selected for complete scrutiny. 25 ITA No.1158/PUN/2023 [A] ITA No.1330/PUN/2023 [R] 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Patna, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chauraha vs. Mohamad Israil Cold Storages Private Limited, Ara

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 198/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.198/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Circle-1, Patna…………...………………...…….………....Appellant Vs. Mohamad Israil Cold Storages Pvt. Ltd............................…..…..... Respondent 33Kh, Chik Toli, Bazar Samiti, Ara Bihar – 802301. [Pan: Aagcm3392N] Appearances By: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Nishant Maitin, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 17, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 23.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.15,87,600/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny For Examination Of Cash Deposits Made During The Period Of Demonetization. Accordingly, Notices U/S 142(1) & 143(2) Of The Act Were Issued & The Assessee Responded By Submitting His Itr, Computation Of Income, Audit Report, Bank Statements & Other Supporting Documents Through Itr Portal. Upon Reviewing The Submissions, The Assessing Officer Observed That The During The

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

income for the assessment year 2017-18 by declaring total income of Rs.15,87,600/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny for examination of cash deposits made during the period of demonetization. Accordingly, notices u/s 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act were issued

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Akola, Nagpur vs. Rbsd and Fn Das, Nagpur

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 36/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 69C

income under section 139(1) of the Act on 01/11/2017, declaring total income of ` 3,52,80,278. The case was selected for complete scrutiny and an assessment order was passed under section 143(3) on 18/11/2019, determining total income ` 3,52,80,280. Later on, the case

Venkateswara Rao Koganti, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 68/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble

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

individual filed its return of income on 31.10.2017 admitting a total income of Rs. 25,68,280/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 to verify the issue of “Cash deposit during demonetization period”. Subsequently, statutory notices under section

Guru Nanak Mission Trust, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Exemption Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 974/HYD/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.974/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Guru Nanak Mission Trust, Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Hyderabad. Income Tax-Exemption, Pan:Aabtg0502G Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Fakhruddin, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 30/01/2025 Hearing: घोर्णध की 13/02/2025 तधरीख/Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Guru Nanak Mission Trust (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 31.07.2024 For The A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Fakhruddin, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, SR-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

exemption u/s.11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') for Rs.1,39,27,871/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and accordingly, notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 23.09.2019. During the assessment proceedings, the Learned Assessing Officer

Income Tax Officer, Morena vs. Sharad Verma, Porsa, Morena

The appeal is allowed

ITA 154/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalincome Tax Officer, Vs. Sharad Verma, Ps Tower, Near Barrier Prop.M/S Jaidayal Chouraha, Opp, Old Enterprises, Sadar Bazar, Rajput Hotel, Ab Road Porsa Morena-476115 Morena-476001 M.P. M.P. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aerpv2262E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

appellant had filed a return of income declaring an income of Rs. 2,03,571/- and the case of the appellant was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS for the following reasons 1. Large cash deposits during demonetization period and business return filed for the first time. 2. Undisclosed income

Nayanaben Gordhandas Jatwani, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle 1(3), Surat

In the result, Ground No.1 raised by the legal representative of the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.361/Srt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Nayanaben Gordhandas Jatwani, Vs. The Acit, 10/2390 Chow Bazar, Surat – Circle – 1(3), 395003, Gujarat Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaypj7362E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/02/2025

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 159(3)Section 250Section 69A

Jatwani – PAN: AAYPJ7363F) filed his return of income for AY.2017-18 on 31.03.2018, declaring total income of Rs.15,58,950/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 30.03.2018. In response to the notices issued u/s 143(2) and 142(1), no substantive details

Anand Kumar Jha, Howrah vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 12/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Anand Kumar Jha Dcit, Central Circle-1 99 Sailendhar Road, Gs Road, Guwahati-781005 Howrah-711204 Vs. Assam West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajfpj0101K Assessee By : S/Shri S.S. Gupta & Sanjeev Choudhury, Ars Revenue By : Shri Kausik Ray, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2025

For Appellant: S/Shri S.S. Gupta &For Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, DR
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

action was taken u/s 132(1) of the Act on Prasad Group including the assessee. The case of the assessee was selected for a complete scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued. Accordingly, the assessee filed the return of income on Anand Kumar

Jagdish Kumar Arora, Bhawanimandi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1195/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

concerned, two type of cases have been selected for scrutiny in the current Financial Year-- one is 'Limited Scrutiny' and other is 'Complete Scrutiny'. The assessees concerned have duly been intimated about their cases falling either in Limited Scrutiny' or 'Complete Scrutiny' through notices issued under section ... 225/402/2018/ITA.II, dated 28.11.2018. From the circular of CBDT, it is abundantly clear that assessing officer would not take up the assessee's case for 'Complete Scrutiny' without duly recording the reasons for expanding the scope of 'Limited Scrutiny', which the assessing officer has failed to do so. Besides

Jsw Energy (Utkal) Limited (Formerly Known As Ind Barath Energy Utkal Limited), Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 539/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

limited scrutiny is restricted only to the issue for which the case has been selected for limited scrutiny unless the same is converted to complete scrutiny after necessary approval of specified authority. The purpose of limited scrutiny in ITA Nos.36 & 539/Hyd/2024 8 C.O. No.8/Hyd/2024 this case was for verification

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Jsw Energy (Utkal) Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 36/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

limited scrutiny is restricted only to the issue for which the case has been selected for limited scrutiny unless the same is converted to complete scrutiny after necessary approval of specified authority. The purpose of limited scrutiny in ITA Nos.36 & 539/Hyd/2024 8 C.O. No.8/Hyd/2024 this case was for verification