← 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

G Sekar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 3(5), Chennai

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

ITA 1417/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1417/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 M/S. G.Sekar, Huf, Income Tax Officer, No.1, Palat Madhavan Road, Non-Corp, Ward-3(5), Mahalingapuram, Chennai. Chennai-34 [Pan: Aadhg6924J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri J.Vignesh, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri J.Vignesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 129Section 143(3)Section 250

assessment order on the premise that even though the case was one of limited scrutiny category, the Ld. AO converted it to , complete scrutiny without taking prior mandatory approval of his supervisory authority. The Ld. Counsel for the assesse drew our attention to the order ... limited scrutiny case to examine claim of huge agricultural income without appreciating that the assesse had challenged conversion of limited to complete scrutiny issue in its grounds of appeal extracted by the appellate authority on page-4 of his order. The Ld. CIT(A) also failed to consider the challenge

Ramachandran, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Coporate Circle-2, Chennai

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

ITA 775/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.775 /Chny/2023 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ramachandran The Asst. Commissioner Of Old No.9, New No.19, Vs. Income Tax, Jumaulingam Street, Non-Corporate Circle-2 Mylapore, Chennai Chennai-600004 [Pan: Aaqhr6150N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1053343791(1) Dated 31.05.2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2015- 16. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 31.05.2023 Passed By Nfac, Delhi. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 250Section 263Section 68

nature, are being adjudicated together in view of a common issue. The Ld. Counsel for the assesse submitted that its case was selected for complete scrutiny on account of suspicious sale transaction in shares of the penny stocks. The brief factual matrix emanating from the assessment order dated