← 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

Balaram Construction Limited, Banaskantha vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as non- maintainable

ITA 727/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Balaram Construction Ltd. The Pcit 309, 3Rd Floor, Shital-9 Vs Ahmedabad-1 Opp. Bihari Bagh, Palanpur Ahmedabad – 380 015 Banaskantha – 385 001 (Gujarat) (Gujarat) Pan: Aaacb 6264 C

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

31/03/2023 by Honorable PCIT, Ahmedabad 1: That our company is assessed vide PAN AAACB6264C by the A.O. NFAC and for A.Y. 2018-19 complete scrutiny assessment order under E-assessment Scheme, 2019 was passed on 17/02/2021 assessing the income at Rs. 73,32,210/- after verification of contract Receipts. That

Nga Hr (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit (Jao - DCIT, Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai)

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and the stay petition filed by the assessee stands dismissed infructuous

ITA 5777/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 253(1)(d)Section 92(3)Section 92C

Rs.22,20,93,482/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and subsequently the case was selected for complete scrutiny Subsequently, notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued. In the scrutiny assessment the Ld.AO observed that the assessee had international transactions with its AE. Accordingly

Rajendra Agrawal, Biroli Bazar vs. ITO Ward 3(1) Purnea, Purnia

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 422/PAT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.422/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rajendra Agrawal.……………….....…..…………………....Appellant New Sipahi Tola, Maranga Road, Bihar – 85301. [Pan: Aqhpa2439E] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Purnia....….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.02.2024 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. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 18 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause Which Was Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Care Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Engaged In Farming Activities. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(2)(c)Section 250

electronically declaring Rs.44,590/- as income from other sources and Rs.7,94,275/- as agricultural income. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued thereon. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to provide proof of agricultural

Sshri Kuldip Singh, Chandigarh vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 103/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 103/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Kuldeep Singh, Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, 2010, बनाम Chandigarh Sec 21-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bllps7083L अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2025 आदेश/Order Per Paresh M. Joshi, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee U/S 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Herein Referred To As ‘The Act’] Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Rev/F/ Revs/ 250 /2020-21/1031467646 (1) Dated 14.03.2021 Of Ld. Pcit, Chandigarh-1 Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Relevant A.Y.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 253Section 263

dated 25.10.2018 was issued to the Assessee wherein it was stated that the Assessee’s case for assessment year 2016-17 was selected for complete scrutiny through Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for following reasons: 1. large cash deposit in saving bank account 2. Large investment in property

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Shillong, Shillong vs. The Meghalaya Cooperative Apex Bank Limited, Shillong

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross

ITA 50/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 36Section 40

case was selected for I.T.A. No.: 50/GTY/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Meghalaya Cooperative Apex Bank Limited. complete scrutiny on account of several issues. The assessee responded to the notices issued. The Ld. AO considered the reply filed and assessed the income at Rs. 45,74,27,754/-. The addition

Rahul Bajpai, Idgah Chowk vs. DCIT Circle 1(1), Shri Ram Plaza

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 345/RPR/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Jan 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.345/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rahul Bajpai Idgah Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Aexpb4410L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54BSection 54DSection 56(2)(vii)

requiring substantial verification on any other issue(s), then he may with an approval of the Pr. CIT/CIT concerns take up the case for “complete scrutiny”. The Ld. AR submitted that as the case of the present assessee that was selected for “limited scrutiny” was at no stage converted into ... complete scrutiny”, therefore, the addition of Rs.50,65,900/- made by the A.O u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act i.e. an issue which had never formed a basis for selection of his case for “limited scrutiny” cannot be sustained and was liable to be struck down for want

ACIT, Circle - 1, Belagavi vs. Rohit Parasharam Patil, Belagavi

Accordingly. The grounds of appeal stands accordingly partly allowed

ITA 71/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 071/Pan/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr Omkar Godbole [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 251Section 253(2)Section 69

Subsequently by service of notice dt. 24/09/2018 issued u/s 143(2) of the Act the case of the assessee was subjected to complete scrutiny. Owning to assessee’s effective failure to explain nature and source of cash deposits made by him into his various bank accounts maintained with State Bank ... case of the ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 5 ACIT Vs Rohit Parasharam Patil ITA Nos.071/PAN/2022 AY: 2017-18 assessee was selected for complete scrutiny to verify abnormal increase in cash deposits made by the respondent assessee during the year under consideration. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee

Kalpana Mishra, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward 5(4), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 491/CTK/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.491/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) वष" Kalpana Mishra, Vs Ito Ward-5(4), Bhubaneswar Plot No.B-87/A, Chandaka Industrial Estate, Patia, Bhubaneswar-751024 Pan No. :Alfpm 2864 E (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri B.R.Pattnaik, Ca राज"व राज"व क" राज"व राज"व क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2025 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2024, Passed By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1062168195(1) For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds :- 1. Hon'Ble Cit(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Ao Even Though The Learned Ao Has Exceeded His Jurisdiction In A Limited Scrutiny Case Selected Under Cass Only To Examine Whether The Investment & Income Relating To Securities Transactions Are Duly Disclosed Or Not & Added A Sum Of Rs.44,00,000.00 U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Without Obtaining Prior Administrative Approval Of The Concerned Pr. Cit/Cit As Prescribed In Circular F. No. 225/402/2018/Ita.Ii, Dated 28- 11-2018 & Instruction No.5/2016 [F.No.225/269/2015-

Section 68

jurisdiction of making verification and addition on the issues other than the issues referred in limited scrutiny without converting the assessment into the complete scrutiny by following due procedure of law. For this, he placed reliance on the CBDT Circular No.4 of 2007 dated 15th June, 2007, CBDT Instruction No.20/2015 ... time to time, the following instructions for laying down the Standard Operating Procedure for handling cases under 'limited scrutiny and converting 'limited scrutiny' to 'Complete Scrutiny': Particulars Annexure No Instruction No. 20/2015 dated 29.12.2015 Annexure-13: P:40-41 Instruction No. 05/2016 dated 14.07.2016 Annexure-14: P:42 Letter [F.NO.DGIT

Ajaz Ahmad, Akola vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Akola

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 40A(3)

under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 29/11/2014, declaring total income at ` 4,76,840. The case was then selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. 4. The assessee for his factory, procure raw cotton from cultivators or their agents, who belongs to remote places. To run factory

Sheeja Vamadevan Sathi, Varkala vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Kowdiar, Trivandrum

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

ITA 523/COCH/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2014-15 Sheeja Vamadevan Sathi Varkala Park International Railway Station Road Ito Vs. Varkala Ward-1(4) Trivandrum 695141 Thiruvananthapuram-3 Pan No :Axtps9216Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

Since the case was already selected for limited scrutiny by CASS, approval was obtained from Principal CIT to convert it into a complete scrutiny as a survey was conducted in respect of assessment year 2014-15. On verification of the documents and after considering the submissions made by the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Dhule vs. Dhule Zilha Parishad Karmachari Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit Dhule, Dhule

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

ITA 769/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68Section 80P(2)(a)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) on 28.03.2021 accepting the returned income. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Statutory notice(s) u/s 143(2)/142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee calling for the details with regard

Bal Reddy Kandunuri, Adilabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1203/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 153ASection 69A

Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was executed and the cash was requisitioned from the Police Authorities, Macherial. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny and accordingly the statutory notices U/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued on various dates and called for certain details

Bal Reddy Kandunuri, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1202/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 153ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA

Pradeep Pinjani, Bhopal vs. ITO-1(2), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

ITA 556/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

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 assesses concerned have duly been intimated about their cases falling either in ‘Limited Scrutiny' or 'Complete Scrutiny’ through notices issued under section ... monetary limit shall be Rs. ten lakhs) requiring substantial verification on any other issue(s), then, the case may be taken up for 'Complete Scrutiny’ with the approval of the Pr. CIT/CIT concerned. However, such an approval shall be accorded by the Pr. CIT/CIT in writing after being satisfied about

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Alwar vs. Alwar Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Alwar

In the result, the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 634/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shr. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT-Sr.DR a
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 40Section 80P(2)(d)

awarded to the assessee.” 5. The brief facts as culled out from the records are that the case of the assessee was selected for Complete Scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the four reasons / issues: i) Quantitative details of principal items of goods traded of raw material

Sarala Singh, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer- 4(3), Lucknow

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

ITA 794/LKW/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2021-22 Sarala Singh V. Income Tax Officer 4(3) 567/206A, Old Jail Road Lucknow Anand Nagar Alambagh, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Cqfbs2682M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 01 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 271ASection 69A

income for the year under consideration on 03.03.2022, declaring a total income of Rs.20,430/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny for the reason that large cash was deposited in bank account and the assessee had also purchased/sold one or more property(ies) during the year

Shree Shyam Sales Corporation, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(2), Raipur. (C.G.), Raipur

ITA 188/RPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 188/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 69C

above period was filed by the appellant on 31.10.2018, declaring total income of Rs.1,61,706/-. The case thereafter was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme 2019, to examine the issue regarding business purchase & business expenses. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the Income

M/S Milroc Good Earth Developers, Panaji vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji

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

ITA 96/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji23 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 96/Pan/2023 (A.Y. 2018-19) Milroc Good Earth Developers, Vs Pr.Cit, 501,Milroc Lar Menezes, Aaykar Bhawan, . Swami Vivekanand Road, Edc Complex, Panaji, North Goa-403001, Patto Plaza, Goa. Panaji-403001, Goa. . Pan/Gir No. Aayfm4095P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 263

disclosing a total income 2 ITA. No.96 /PAN/2023 Milroc Good earth Developers. . of Rs.88,49,660/-. Subsequently the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS to verify the “Income From Real estate Business” and notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act are issued. In compliance

Jagruti Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Myt Parli Vaijnath, Vaijnath vs. ITO Ward 1(5) Aurangabad, Aurangabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2253/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shilpa N.C
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 80P

facts relating to ITA No.2253/PUN/2024 are that the assessee declared Nil income after claiming deduction u/s.80P of the Act. The case selected for complete scrutiny followed by issuance of statutory notices of the Act. In the absence of any compliance, ld. AO completed the assessment determining the income

Jagruti Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Myt Parli Vaijnath, Parali Vaijnath vs. ITO Ward 1(5) Pune, Pune

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2252/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shilpa N.C
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 80P

facts relating to ITA No.2253/PUN/2024 are that the assessee declared Nil income after claiming deduction u/s.80P of the Act. The case selected for complete scrutiny followed by issuance of statutory notices of the Act. In the absence of any compliance, ld. AO completed the assessment determining the income