“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

M/S. Subhrashi Enclave Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, 10 (2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1963/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1963/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Subhrashi Enclave Pvt. Ltd...…..…………………....Appellant 14-C, M.D. Road, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700007. [Pan: Aascs6378Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit & Somnath Das & Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 02, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.09.2023 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. The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 324 Days. An Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Which Is Also Supported With The Affidavit Of Shri Subhash Sharma, The Director Of The Assessee Company, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) Was Passed On 01.09.2023 But The Order Was Communicated To The Assessee On 03.09.2024. Immediately, The Assessee Engaged An Authorized Representative & Filed The Appeal. The Ld. Ar Further Stated That The Notice & Also The Impugned Order Were Not Duly Served Upon The Assessee Due To Mismatch Of Email Address Which Was Provided In Form 35. Therefore, The Assessee Was Not Aware Of The Passing Of The

Section 143(2)Section 250

main contention of the ld. AR is that the Assessing Officer went beyond the scope of limited scrutiny without obtaining prior approval for complete scrutiny. Moreover, the assessee furnished all necessary details/supporting documents such as copies of ITR, audited accounts, salary payment details, month-wise daily attendance register, rent agreement ... 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. We also note that the Assessing Officer without converting the case into complete security and without obtaining necessary approval cannot disallow the expenses

Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva vs. Pravin Kumar Pawan Kumar, Kolkata, Wb

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 131/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144D

filed its return of income for the AY 2018-19on 28/09/2018 declaring total income of Rs.7,99,823/-. This case was selected for Complete Scrutiny under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019to verify the issue of business purchases. Accordingly, the AO issued notice

Balwa Group Coop Society, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Mehsana

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

ITA 1636/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 56Section 57Section 80P(2)(a)

society and filed return of income for assessment year 2018-19 on 09-10-2018 admitting income at nil. The case was selected for complete scrutiny on the following issues:- (i) Expenditure of personal nature (ii) Investment/advances/loans (iii) Deduction from total income under chapter 6A The return was processed

Ahmednagar Auto and Engineering Association, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward 1, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 2010/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 37Section 68

facilitate MSME located in Ahmednagar. It filed its return of income on 29.10.2018 declaring Nil income. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues: “S.No. Issues Business Expenses” i. 5. The return was processed

Gebbs Healthcare Solutions Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT (1)(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5528/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 10ASection 115JSection 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

opportunity of hearing or show-cause notice to the assessee. Apart from that, it is seen that the assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny and in the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3), the returned income has been accepted. From the perusal of the assessment order

Bank of Maharashra, Pune vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 682/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan and Mrs. Lalitha RameswaranFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40A(7)

assessee, in response to which the AR of the assessee filed the requisite details from time to time. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues: S. No. Issues i. Claim of Any other Amount Allowable as Deduction in Schedule

Jatan Raj Jain, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1715/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Jatan Raj Jain Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(3), (Prop. Sri Kalyani Electro Hyderabad. World), Secunderabad. Pan : Abapj3416C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

admitting a total income of Rs.10,06,130/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and selected for Complete Scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, the AO issued the statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act and, after conducting hearings with

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik vs. Chakrahar Contractors and Engineers Private Limited, Jalgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1940/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(3)(i)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(9)

processed u/s.143(1)(a) on 21.06.2021 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.23,84,93,182/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS to examine the following issues: (i) Default in TDS (ii) Default in TDS & Disallowance for such default (iii) Refund claim (iv) Unsecured

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik vs. Chakradhar Contractors and Engineers Private Limited, Jalgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1939/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(3)(i)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(9)

Bible Fellowship Center, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Ward-1(2), Pune

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

ITA 2281/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2281/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ashok G. RathodFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80G

Registration Act, 1860. It filed the return of return for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 29.10.2016 declaring Nil income. After the case selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for verification of approval obtained u/s.80G and increase in total voluntary contributions followed by notices u/s.143(2)/142

Kamran Zubair, Kanpur vs. The AO Circle-1(2)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 84/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Kamran Zubair V. The Assessing Officer 112/349-D, Swaroop Nagar Circle 1(2)(1) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaepz7118E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Saurabh Dubey, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Dubey, D.R

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271ASection 69A

income for the year under consideration on 06.11.2017, declaring a total income of Rs.15,26,110/-. Later on, the case was selected for complete scrutiny to examine the issue of cash deposits during the demonetization period. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that ITA No.84/LKW/2024

Tara Constructions, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Pune

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

ITA 531/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

filed the return of income for the A.Y.2018-19 on 28.09.2018 disclosing total income of Rs.58,46,500/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny for verification of (a) Expenditure of Personal Nature; (b) Income from Real Estate Business; and (b) Unsecured loans. Statutory notices u/s.143(2)/142(1) were

Nipro Medical Inda Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 531/HYD/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Kishore Phadke, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)

losses of earlier years against income from business and income from other sources. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS to verify the following issues: - 1. Verification of Genuineness of Expenses 2. Claim of any other amount allowable as deduction in schedule BP 3. Default

Bombay Duck Dining Company Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1076/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Madan Mohan Meena, SR-

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36Section 40Section 68

Return for A.Y. 2016-17 on 30/09/2016 admitting a loss of Rs. 2,87,12,417/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee by the learned Assessing Officer

Shri Khandelwal Diamonds Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1187/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Mukesh Khandelwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT, Ld. DR

Section 115BSection 145(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 68

filed its return of income on 28.10.2017 declaring total income at Rs. 1,98,84,120/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under the CASS. It was noticed by the AO that during the year under consideration, the assessee deposited cash in the form of SBNs

Reena Kumari, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with consequences to follow

ITA 752/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Reena Kumari, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-435, First Floor, Ward-54(4), Defence Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 024. Pan: Abcps0078F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Ahuja, Ca & Shri Pushpdeep Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Ahuja, CA &For Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)Section 153(1)Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

sides, the necessary facts required to be on record are that the assessee’s return of income of Rs.10,31,940/- was selected for complete scrutiny on the basis of suspicious sale transaction in shares and exempt long- term capital gain shown in the return arising out of alleged penny

Basant Jain, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle 29, Delhi

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

ITA 2749/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

Jainsons Jewellers, proprietary concern of the assessee, on 03.05.2018 by the Investigation Wing, Panipat. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny and the case was centralized to Central Cirle-29, New Delhi. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served

Rachna Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2531/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

570/in which she had offered the amount of short-term capital gain earned as “Income from other sources”. 4. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under the CASS. 5. A notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued ... International Ltd. at Rs. 4,68,000/-, both the shares are purchased through banking channel. 21. That the Appellant's case is selected for complete scrutiny assessment without the lawful exercise of jurisdiction, as the concerned Assessing Officer (“AO”) failed to issue a notice under Section

Rachna Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 29, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5418/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Prabhudas Chhitabhai Patel, Charola vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1607/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

assessee on 31.10.2017 which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case was selected for scrutiny in “complete scrutiny” category and A.Y: 2017-18 Prabhudas Chhitabhai Patel vs. DCIT Page 2 of 3 notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued