“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

Rsvcpl-Alam (Jv), Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 407/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Ms. Mrudulatha, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B

status of AOP, on 31.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 17,33,360/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for verification of contract receipts and claim of refund. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the income

Silver Wings Life Spaces, Kota vs. DCIT Circle-1 Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Which Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra(Addl. CIT)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

disclosed income in survey date 04/07/2016 which is not reason of scrutiny in the case concerned and case is not connected to complete scrutiny as per applicable CBDT guidelines. Therefore, the assessment proceeding u/s 143(3) is bad in law, is null and void and deserves to be quashed

Propertyshare Online Platform Private Limited, Koramangala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 970/BANG/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavpropertyshare Online Platform Dcit, Circle 3(1)(1) Pvt. Ltd. Bmtc Building E715, 7Th Main Raheja Koramangala Vs. Residency, Koramangala Bangalore 560034 Bangalore 560034 Pan – Aaicp4597N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Arising From The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2003-24/1063571987(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 28.03.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22. 2. The Facts Leading To The Filing Of The Present Appeal Are That The Assessee, Is A Private Limited Company, Filed Its Return Of Income On 02.03.2022 Declaring Nil Income. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Has Observed That The Assessee Has Made Payment Of An Amount Of Rs. 20 Lakhs To One Mr. Syed Zayd Ahmed On Account Of Commission. The Ao

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 250

assessee, is a private limited company, filed its return of income on 02.03.2022 declaring Nil income. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) has observed that the assessee has made payment of an amount

Makam Prasanna, Nrc Buidling Mg Road vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-, Chikaballapur

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

ITA 1083/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 69A

deleted.” 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income on 31.03.2018. The case was selected for complete scrutiny Page 2 of 6 and statutory notices issued to the assessee, but there was no response from the assessee’s side. From the information

Kiratpur Ner Chowk Expressway Limited, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2995/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

declared its total income at “Rs.Nil” by filing its return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 on 30.09.2015, which was subsequently selected for complete scrutiny and consequently statutory notices were issued to the Assessee calling for details, in response to which the Assessee filed the relevant details. On perusing

Kirtapur Ner Chowk Expressway Limited, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward, 14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the instant appeal i

ITA 2994/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Rathod, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, [Addl. CIT] Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

Kirtapur Ner Chowk Expressway Limited, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer. Ward, 14(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2993/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

Kamlesh Mahajan, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh

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

ITA 40/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Us Is Filled In Terms Of Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, As & By Way Of Second Appeal. Impugned Order Is Of First Appellate Proceedings Under The Act. Brief Factual Matrix The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer Is Under Section 143(3) Which Is Dated 23/12/2019 Whereby In Returne Income Of Rs. 7,02,490/- An Addition Of Rs. 22,46,795/- Is Made. The Assessed Income Determined Is Of Rs. 29,49,285/-. The Additions Are Made By Virtue Of Para 12 Of The Assessment Order Which Read As Under: “12. The Assessee Deposited Huge Cash In Bank Accounts During Demonetization Period (9Th November, 2016 To 30Th December, 2016), But The Sources Were Neither Explained Nor Such Money Offered For Taxation, The Onus Is On The Assessee To Prove That The Cash Deposits Made Did Not Bear The Character

For Appellant: Shri Amitoz Singh Kamboj, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 253Section 44ASection 68

interalia contended as follows: “The assessee is engaged in the trading business. For the assessment year 2017-18, her case was selected for Complete Scrutiny under CASS. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under Section 143(3) and made an addition of र 22,46,795/- on account

Babita Jain, Ambala City vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1 Ambala, Ambala Cantt

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand back to the file of Ld

ITA 820/CHANDI/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mapreet Duggal, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

filed a return of income declaring her income of Rs. 3,81,290/- on 31/10/2017. 3. The case of the assssee was selected under complete scrutiny in order to verify the purpose of large cash deposits. 4. A notice under section 143(2) was issued to the assessee on 13/08/2018

Vishal Mehra and Son (HUF), New Delhi vs. Income Tax Office 43 (6) Delhi, Delhi

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3226/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 145Section 68Section 69

jeweller, filed its Income Tax Return (In short, the ‘ITR’) on 07.11.2017 declaring income of Rs.6,02,510/-. The case was picked up for complete scrutiny. The assessee had deposited cash aggregating to Rs.2,10,00,000/- in his bank account during the demonetization period. The scrutiny assessment was completed

Huhtamaki India Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 6, Mumbai

ITA 2668/MUM/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeι.Τ.Α No.2668/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) Huhtamaki India Limited A-802, Cresenzo, C-38/39 G Block, Brandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East), Mumbai Pan: Aaact0086E Appellant Vs Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax-6, Mumbai 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mahrishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Tiwari Respondent By : Shrisolgy Jose T. Kottaram(Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/07/2024 Order Per Anikesh Banerjee, J.M: Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Of Thelearned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mumbai-6 (For Brevity, ‘Ld.Pcit') Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act'), For Assessment Year 2018-19, Date Of Order21.03.2024.The Impugned Order Was Emanated From The Order Of The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, (In Short, ‘The A.O.') Passed Under Section 143(3)Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Date Of Order19/04/2021. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: ShriSolgy Jose T. Kottaram(CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 263

reasons for selected scrutiny under the e-Assessment Scheme, 2019”. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as below:- “1. The case was selected for Complete Scrutiny assessment under the E- assessment Scheme, 2019 on 'the following issues:- S. No. Issues i. Claim of Any Other Amount Allowable as Deduction in Schedule

Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt Ltd, Mumbai, India vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax PCIT, Mumbai-5, Ayakar Bhavan Mumbai

ITA 1926/MUM/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 263

PCIT, Mumbai -5, Mumbai प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the return of income was selected for complete scrutiny under E-assessment Scheme, 2019, the following issues:- S. No. Issues i. Expenditure of Personal Nature ii. Investments/Advances/Loans iii. Income from Liquor Business iv. Refund

Kaushlya Chaudhary, Gurugram vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Gurgaon, Gurugram

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1395/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 234BSection 28Section 56Section 57

exempt income on account of acquisition of agricultural land at Rs. 2,76,71,650/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny. Vide order dated 26.09.2021, the AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income

DCIT Central Circle-2, Noida vs. Alok Vatsa, Noida

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 1717/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 132ASection 2(14)

conducted in case of the assessee on 18.02.2022. Due to such search & seizure operation, assessee’s case was picked up for complete scrutiny. In course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to justify his claim of non-taxability of capital gain from alleged sale of agricultural

Bimal Arya, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-28(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 586/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Monalisa Maity, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 193Section 250

limited scrutiny. There was no approval of the ld. PCIT on record or on order to convert the case of limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny as required by the directions of the CBDT and hence, the addition made by the AO is directed to be deleted. 5. In the result

The Eluru Co Operative House Mortgage Society Ltd, Eluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Eluru

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 10/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.10/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) The Eluru Cooperative House Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mortgage Society Limited, Eluru. Eluru. Pan: Aacat0060G (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 26/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

claiming exemption U/s. 80P of the Act to the tune of Rs. 31,71,473/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under e-assessment proceedings scheme, 2019 on the issues viz., (i) investments / advances / loans and (ii) deduction from total income under Chapter-VI-A. On this issue, after

Shri Ramesh Venkataswamy, Ranipet vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vellore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1068/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1068/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ramesh Venkataswamy, Income Tax Officer, 89, Jangalapalli, Senur B.O., V. Ward -1, Vellore – 632 006. Vellore. [Pan: Aadpr-0974-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 80C

declared a total income of Rs.12,04,160/- by claiming a refund of Rs.2,88,450/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny for the reason that, the return has been revised and large refund has been claimed by showing lesser taxable income compared to the original return of income

Saraswati Mukund Education Society, Thane vs. ITO (Exemption), Thane

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

ITA 337/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 337/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16) Saraswati Mukund Vs. Ito Exemption Education Society 208-209, 2Nd Floor Plot No. 15, Jeal Park Qureshi Mansion, Bhayander East Teen Hath Naka, Thane-401 105. Opp Malhar Talkies Pan : Aafts4158Q Thane(W)-400602. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 06.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 11Section 13Section 131Section 143

given under the limited scrutiny selection of cases under CASS no permission was taken by the principal CIT – CIT to convert the case to complete scrutiny. Thus the addition so made of ₹ 9,063,538/–, being disallowance of claim under section 11 of the act, be kindly deleted and appropriate

Income Tax Officer - 25(2)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Mumbai Postal Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue and cross-objection by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1642/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Ms Usha Gaikwad, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

interest from the Co-operative Banks under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The return filed by the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny, inter-alia, on the issue of deduction from total income under Chapter VI-A of the Act, and accordingly, statutory notices under section

Prashant Hariappa Kotian, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 22(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 132/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriprashant Hariappa Kotian V/S. Ito, Wd. 22(2)(5), Mumbai 806 C Wing, Sushila Baug, बनाम Room No. 320, 3 Rd Floor, S.V. Road, Santacruz(W.), Piramal Chamber, Lal Maharashtra-400054 Baug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Acvpk0150A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Lieder Panicker

Section 250Section 69A

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return declaring nil income for Ay 2017-18. The case was selected for complete scrutiny. During the year, the assessee has shown to be a partner in two partnership firms viz. M/s. Bharat Boring Works and M/s. Bharat Metalizing & Engineering