← 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

Sri Vijaya Educational and Cultural Society, Challapalli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Machilipatnam

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

ITA 258/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.258/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2017-18 ) Sri Vijaya Educational & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Cultural Society, Vijayawada Ward-1, Road, Challapalli, Krishna Machilipatnam-521001, District – 521126, Andhra Krishna District, Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aaias6018H (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri K. Siva Ram Kumar, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri K. Siva Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 4

20/12/2017 admitting NIL income after claiming exemption U/s. 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS and notice U/s. 143(2) dated 14/09/2018 was duly served on the assessee. Subsequently, notice U/s. 142(1) was issued on various dates calling for specific information

ACIT, Circle-1, Tirunelveli vs. Esakkimuthu Muthuvel Iyappan, Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 794/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.794/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Esakkimuthu Muthuvel Iyappan, Income Tax, No.4, Highways Road, Circle 1, Tisayanvilai, Tirunelveli 627 011. Tirunelveli 627 657. [Pan : Arupm 4796J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

period 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 and filed extract of cash book. It is to be kept in mind that, this case was selected for complete scrutiny. Assessee further explained that there is no abnormal variation in cash deposits in FY 2015-16 and 2016-17. The assessee had also shown cash ... Jewellers filed his return of income for AY 2017-18 on 10.01.2018 declaring total income of Rs.15,64,890/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. 8. The AO passed assessment order dated 31.12.2019, rejected arguments of the assessee and made addition of Rs.2

Chairman Raja John, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu vs. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Corporate Ward Four, Coimbatore

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

ITA 816/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.816/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Chairman Raja John, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 18, Thasami Park Residency, Corporate Ward 4, Trichy Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore. Coimbatore 641 005. [Pan: Aczpc4927F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.01.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Ld. Ar, Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate, By Referring To Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3, Argued That The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For ‘Limited Scrutiny’ & Drew Our Attention To Para 10 Of The Assessment Order. He Argued That The Assessing Officer, During The Course Of ‘Limited Scrutiny’

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

assessee to furnish the details, which are beyond the issues got selected for ‘limited scrutiny’. Further, by converting the said ‘limited scrutiny’ into ‘complete scrutiny’, intimated to the assessee only on 27.12.2016 and passed the assessment order on 30.12.2016 giving no reasonable time to the assessee. He argued that ... furnish the required details. Further, the Assessing Officer, seeking valid approval from the Competent Authority, intimated the assessee for conversion of ‘limited scrutiny’ into ‘complete scrutiny’. He further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has validly confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. Having heard both the parties