“complete scrutiny”

Parry Engineering & Electronics Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 10. The Departmental Representative (DR) argued that the case was not selected for limited scrutiny but for complete scrutiny under the Computer- Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). The notice issued under Section 143(2) was to inform the assessee that the case was selected ... system-based selection process. The DR further submitted that the AO, in his assessment order, explicitly stated that the case was selected for complete scrutiny, and therefore, the AO was required to examine all issues, including the delayed payment of employees' contributions to PF/ESIC. 11. We have heard the arguments

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Oriental Enterprises Private Limited, Pcc Notified Area

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 14-10-2016 declaring total income of Rs.10,25,170/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and notices were issued under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, and the assessment order was passed

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Oriental Enterprises Private Limited, Pcc Notified Area

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 14-10-2016 declaring total income of Rs.10,25,170/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and notices were issued under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, and the assessment order was passed

Oriental Enterprise Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 14-10-2016 declaring total income of Rs.10,25,170/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and notices were issued under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, and the assessment order was passed

Shreenath Developers, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(5), Vadodara

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

impugned year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income showing “NIL” income. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny for the reason “introduction of large capital during the year of incorporation and large investment in property as compared to total income”. The Assessing Officer observed that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shilp Gravures Limited, Ahmedabad

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

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Division Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen

income of Rs. 8,72,74,960/-. The return of income was processed by Revenue u/s 143(1). Thereafter, it was selected for framing complete scrutiny assessment(CASS). Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by the AO to the assessee. In the return of income filed

The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Urmilaben Bharatbhushan Agarwal, Ahmedabad

In the result, the filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Partnership Firms. The assessee filed her Return of Income on 05.08.2017 declaring total income of Rs.6,45,330/-. The return was taken for complete scrutiny to verify the claim of exempt income namely capital gain/loss on sale of Lands. During the year the assessee declared agricultural income of Rs.3