“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

Guardian India Operations Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT 1, Chennai

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

ITA 842/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik ShahFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, IRS,CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

filed its original return of income for AY 2017-18 declaring a total income of Rs.11,88,48,130/-. The case was selected under complete scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act on 21.04.2021 accepting the return income as assessed income. 4. Succinctly stated ... audit report in Form 3CD filed by the Assessee. At this juncture, the Assessee reiterates the fact that it was already subjected to a 'complete scrutiny by the Ld. AO. During the course of the original assessment proceedings, the National e-Assessment Centre ('NeAC') issued a notice dated September

Cidco Employees Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Ward 28(1)(3), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 700/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalcidco Employees Co-Op. Credit Society, Ground Floor, Cidco Bhavan, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 400 614 Pan:Aaaac2203N ..... Appellant Vs. Ito Ward 28(1) (3)/ Nfac Delhi ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DR

Section 143Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)Section 80Section 80P

income at Rupees10,25,520/- after claiming deduction under section 80(P) for Rs. 60,61,597.The return of the Assessee was selected for Complete Scrutiny under the e-assessment scheme, 2019 (faceless assessment scheme 13/08/2020)processed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Rolta Defence Technology Systems Pvt. Ltd. Through Neha Jain Nemani, Resolution Professional, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed as stated hereinabove

ITA 3127/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

business loss of Rs. 3,92,12,935/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) r/w 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. Assessee did not furnish all required details

Nse Clearing Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3719/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm A.Y.2020-21 Nse Clearing Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Exchange Plaza, Bandra Income Tax-Circle 7(1)(1), Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai Mumbai Vs.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43B

scrutiny by issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act on 29.6.2021. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny on eight different aspects. During the course of scrutiny assessment, it was found that the assessee has claimed deduction of health and education cess of Rs.2

Ernst and Young U.S. LLP, United States vs. ACIT, Circle International Tax 1(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3253/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 192

section 115A of the Act r.w. the provisions of Article of the India-USA Tax Treaty. Return so filed was selected for complete scrutiny and accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. 8. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, inter alia, the Assessing Officer issued

Smt. Ravishankar Shylaja, Davangere vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davangere

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

ITA 624/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 250Section 68

that the assessee filed his return of income for AY 2017-18 on 20.12.2017 declaring Nil income. Thereafter the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and accordingly notices were issued u/s. 143(2) as well as 142(1) of the Act from time to time calling

Shri Vivekvardhini Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Jalgaon vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Jalgaon

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

ITA 888/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.888/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Respondent: Shri Naimish Dixik

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

claiming exemption u/s 80P(d)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) of Rs.70,50,472-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny for verification of (i) Deduction from Total Income (Chapter VI-A (Business ITR) and (ii) Low income in comparison to very high investments appearing

Nikhil Vijendra Jain, Pune vs. NFAC, Delhi/ Jurisdictional AO, ITO Ward 7(1), Pune

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

ITA 684/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora &For Respondent: Ms. Sonal Laxmidas Sonkavde

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

parties. He filed his return of income on 23.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs.8,16,220/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under the E-assessment Scheme on the following issues: 2 “S. No. Issues i. Business Expenses” 3. During the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer

Sangeeta Godha, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh vs. ITO-2(3), Bhopal, Income Tax

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 238/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsangeeta Godha, Ito 2(3), E-3/18-19, Bhopal Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 56

individual and declared income of Rs.7,51,170/- in the return of income for Assessment Year 2016-17 furnished on 30.03.2017. Case selected for complete scrutiny under CASS followed by validly issuing and serving notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings

Vijaykiran Educationaltrust, Bangalore Karnataka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 974/BANG/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran D., D.R

Section 11Section 250

assessee e-filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2018- 19 on 19.10.2013 declaring total income at Nil. The case was selected for Complete Scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the issues: i. Expenditure for Charitable or Religious Purposes; ii. Receipts of Trust. During the course

Mahesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 936/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

Assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) on 28.12.2019 accepting the income shown in the return. 2.1 The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS to verify various issues including the large deduction/exemption claimed u/s 54 etc. The assessee claimed to have sold 6 flats for a total consideration ... also has recorded the facts of the enquiry conducted by the AO. He reproduced the relevant portion hereunder: 2. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS to verify various issues including the large deduction/exemption claimed u/s 54 etc. The assessee claimed to have sold 6 flats

Smt. Bridget Anthony(Legal Heir of Late Mr. Elevathingal Joseph Anthony), Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 509/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69

First, we will deal with ground Nos.2 & 3 and additional ground no.1 which is with regard to Conversion from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny. Smt. Bridget Anthony, Bangalore Page 5 of 28 5.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that the reason for selecting the appellant’s case for limited scrutiny ... entire assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. 5.2 He further submitted that the learned assessing officer has not converted the limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny for completing the assessment as discussed above. The CBDT vide its Instruction no. 5/2016 has laid down the procedure for converting the limited scrutiny

Mahesh Reddy, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2, Bengaluru

ITA 1379/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Sri K.R. Pradeep, A.R. & Ms. Girija G.P., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Kiran D., D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

Inter Gold (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4400/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

declaring total income of Rs.23,77,40,410/- and also returned book profit of Rs.22,16,64,756/- u/s.115JB. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under faceless e-assessment scheme. Thereafter, ld. AO issued several notices and questionnaires u/s. 142(1) to which assessee filed the replies on ITBA

India Commercial Services, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

16. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 484/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shailendra Sharma (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

declaring total income at Rs. 1,21,07,200/-. Assessee firm ITA No. 484/JP/2024 India Commercial Services, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues:- S. No. Issues i. Income from Real Estate Business. ii. Unsecured Loans ... which was earned on account of contracts received from Government as well as private parties. When case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019, the two issues flagged for verification were: (i) Income from Real Estate Business and (ii) Unsecured Loans. The assessment

DCIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tarmat Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3106/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit 13(3)(2), Tarmat Limited Room No. 229, Roman Tarmat Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, General Vaidya Marg, M. K. Road, Goregaon East, Vs. Mumbai- 400020. Mumbai- 400063. Pan: Aaact1561G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jigar MehtaFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule, (Addl. CIT), SR. D.R

Section 153Section 250Section 250(4)Section 68

duly processed by the CPC on 02/10/2019. Subsequently, on the basis of the revised return of the assessee company, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS on the issue i) increased in TDS in Revised Return ii) Refund Claim, iii) Unsecured Loans, iv) Contract Receipts or Fees. Accordingly

Anwar M. Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-20(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2669/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SRDR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

filed on 28/08/2018 by declaring the total income of Rs.30,64,860/-. The case of the assessee was selected for ‘complete scrutiny’ assessment under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the issue of – (a) Investment in immovable properties; and (b) Capital gains / Income from sale of property. Accordingly, notice

Fine Estates Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-2, Mumbai

ITA 111/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 64

normal provisions of the Act and loss of Rs.1,85,80,649/- u/s. 115JB of the Act. The assessee's case was selected for complete scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were duly issued and served upon the assessee. 4. The ld. Assessing Officer ('A.O.' for short

Lumis Biotech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1033/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawallumis Biotech Pvt Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Circle -7(1)(1), Room No.130, 1St Floor, 501, Arun Chambers, Ayakar Bhavan, Tardeo, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400034. Mumbai -400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacl1066G (अपीऱाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hitesh P. Shah.Ar Respondent By Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 31.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 01.08.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: “ The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi/Cit(A), Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Hon. Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated The Fact That The Appellant Could Not Represent Its Case Due To Circumstances Beyond Its Control. 2 The Hon. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Disregarding The Fact That The Accountant Had Made Inadvertent Mistake In Claiming Deduction U/S.35(2Aa).

Section 35

assessee has filed the revised return of income on 31.10.2018 disclosing the same total income. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues. 1. Default in TDS 2. Default in TDS & Disallowance of such default 3. Duty Drawback

The Panchmahals Dist. Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Godhra vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 675/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.675/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Panchmahals Dist. Co- The Ito Op.Bank Ltd. बनाम/ Ward-3(1)(2), Prabha Road Vadodara V/S. Dahod Highway Godhra – 389 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaajt 0268 P (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 14/08/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 29/12/2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income The Panchmahals Dist. Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 69A

assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2017- 18 on 30-10-2017 declaring income of Rs.NIL. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for the reason of expenses claimed to interest payment to interest earned exempt income and investment in share appearing in balance-sheet