“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

Samkeet Arya Homes LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 249/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2018-10

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 37

tests which evidence that the non-compete fees in the case of the Appellant is a revenue expenditure.” 3. The case was selected for complete scrutiny on the issue of income from Real Estate business and unsecured loans in assessee’s case. Notices under Section

ACIT, Ncrb, Statue Circle vs. Balvir Singh Tomar, Adarsh Nagar

ITA 283/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. G. M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Dhaka, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

income for the AY 2017-18 declaring total income at Rs. 7,84,71,260/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for"Complete Scrutiny"u/s. 143(3) of the Act based onComputer Assisted Selection for Scrutiny (CASS) and statutory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued ... money i.e. an amount of Rs. 3,80,28,500/- which was in the form of the SBNs. The case was selected for complete scrutiny and based on comparison of the deposit of cash by the assessee with that of the current year being higher the same wascorrectly considered

Jade Granites Industries, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 81/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Which Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 23-11-2023 In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1058173176(1)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

income , which was processed by Revenue u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing complete scrutiny assessment under CASS. Statutory Notices u/s. 143(2) & 142(1) were issued by the AO to the assessee, which were claimed ... case of the assessee I.T.A No. 81/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No. 14 Jade Granites Industries v. ITO was selected by Revenue for framing complete scrutiny assessment under CASS. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by the A.O. to the assessee. The assessee filed submissions

Income-Tax Officer Ward-2, Ahmednagar vs. Samta Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 180/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.180/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ito, Ward-2, Ahmednagar. Vs. Samta Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Newasa Shevgaon Road, Kukana, Tal. Newasa, Dist.-Ahmednagar- 414604. Pan : Aacas1915K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Payal Rathi Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.07.2024 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Allowing The Deduction Of Rs.1,54,02,646/- U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act, As The Assessee Claimed Deduction U/S 80P(2)(D) In Respect Of The Interest Income From Investment, Which Is Not The Operational Income.

For Appellant: Smt. Payal RathiFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

said return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for Complete Scrutiny to examine the following issues :- (i) High Creditors/liabilities (ii) High interest expenditure/finance cost and 3 (iii) Deduction from total income under Chapter Vl-A Accordingly, notices

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada vs. Fysolate Technologies, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 182/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.182/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Fysolate Technologies, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Vijawayada. Pan: Aacff5633L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Mithilesh Sannareddy ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 15/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri Mithilesh SannareddyFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Japan, Europe catering to the needs of pharmaceutical, Ayurvedic, Cosmetic, Food & Beverage, Nutritional and Pet Care Industry. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices U/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served on the assessee

Sonny Fireworks Pvt. Ltd., Virudhunagar vs. DCIT, CC-2, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1081/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1081/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Sonny Fireworks Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, 12A/1C, West Street, Corporate Circle-2, Thiruthangal-626 123. Madurai. [Pan: Aadcs 3010 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwaran, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh-

Section 143(1)Section 68

admitting total income of Rs.29,74,010/-, which was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act; and later, selected for complete scrutiny. The AO noted that during the year assessee had deposited SBNs of Rs.3,09,37,567/- after 08.11.2016 (demonetization period). So, the AO asked the assessee to explain

Spark Mall and Parking Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 33/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

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

year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 31/10/2017, declaring loss of ` (–) 31,16,32,554. The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. Notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly served on the assessee through ITBA. During the assessment

Capgemini Technology Services India Limited (Successor to Capgemini India Private Limited, Airoli, Navi Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 55, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2657/MUM/2023[AY 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M P LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(3)Section 92C

Grounds No. 16 & 17 are that the Appellant filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 on 29/11/2012, which was selected for complete scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) who passed order under Section 92CA

Manali Chimanrao Patil, Jalgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Jalgaon

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

ITA 120/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.120/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Manali Chimanrao Patil, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Mahalaxmi Auto Kajgaon Road, Jalgaon Parola Taluka, Parola, Jalgaon – 425 111 Maharashtra Pan : Aszpp2698G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. Joshi (through Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

Return of Income for the A.Y. 2017-18 was filed on 03.07.2017 disclosing total income of Rs.3,66,534/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny. Statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the appellant. The appellant had not complied with any of the notices

Shri Sharanabasaveshwar Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamit, Halingali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward and Tps

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

ITA 596/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri.Monish Sowkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Gale, Standing Counsel

Section 143(3)Section 19Section 250Section 56Section 57Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

return of income for the Asst. Year 2020-21 on 07.12.2020 declaring the net Income of Rs.NIL. Thereafter, the case was selected for complete scrutiny. The statutory notices were issued and served to the appellant accordingly. During the course of assessment proceedings it was noticed that the appellant had received

Shri. Rafeeq Ismailsab Bairakdar, Mudhol vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tps, Bagalkote

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

ITA 612/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyrafeeq Ismailsab Bairakdar The Income Tax Officer Cts Yadawad Cross Ward 1 & Tps Lokapur Mudhol Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Mudhol 587313 Sector No. 24, Navanagar Pan – Ayspb5817A Bagalkot 587102 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Saidappa B. Gadadi, Ca Revenue By: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1060531591(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 06.02.2024 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Hon'Ble Cit (Appeals) Being A Quasi-Judicial Authority Has Failed Verify The Loan Taken From Shri Aslam I Bairkadar As In The Appellate Order The Learned Cit(A) Has Reiterated The Name Of Appellant Only It Shows That Order Has Been Passed In Hurry Burry Manner Without Going Into Detailed Verification & Simply Stated Assessee Has Submitted Only Icici Bank Account. 2. The Hon'Ble Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Not Giving Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard While Confirming The Additions As Every Time The Learned Cit(A) Has Asked "In Support Of Your

For Appellant: Shri Saidappa B. Gadadi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 37Section 44ASection 68

Assessee are also audited by a Chartered Accountant U/s 44AB of the I. Tax act, 1961. Subsequently the case was selected for complete scrutiny on the issue of “Verification of Transactions”. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that during the course of assessment proceedings, in spite of sufficient opportunities offered

Mahaveera Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangalore

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

ITA 301/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Roopa Arun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Standing Counsel for Department

Section 250Section 58Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

accordingly declared the net Income of Rs.NIL. Thereafter, the case was selected for Page 4 of 8 complete scrutiny on the issues of "Deduction u/s 80P". The notices were issued and served to the appellant accordingly. During the course of assessment proceedings it was noticed that the appellant had declared

Asstt. Commisssioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle Pune, P.M.T Building Swargate Pune vs. Kedari Redekar Shikshan Sanstha Gadhinglaj, Gadhinglaj

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 559/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati

Section 12ASection 270ASection 270A(8)Section 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 80G

educational activity. It filed its return for AY 2017-18 on 03.01.2018 declaring total income of Rs.Nil. The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. The assessee was registered u/s 12A of the Act and qualified for exemption u/s 80G of the Act. 3.1 During the assessment proceedings ... filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 03-01-2018, declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. Notice u/s 143(2) dated 11-08-2018 was issued and served on the assessee. Assessment was completed

Ms. Binu Christeena, Chennai vs. ITO, Non-Corporate Ward-15(1), Chennai

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

ITA 654/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.654/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Ms.Binu Christeena, The Income Tax Officer, No.3/421, Door No.D4, Non-Corporate Ward-15(1), Southern Rivera Pandian Salai, Chennai. Neelankarai, Chennai-600 041. [Pan: Aokpc 8768 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms.S.Vishnu Priya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 44ASection 69A

Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 on 13.12.2017 admitting income of Rs.6,04,786/-. Later on, the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny for AY 2017-18, and the assessee was asked to furnish certain details as well as reconciliation of Form 26AS with the income offered

Dara Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3697/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sh. Dara Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 270, Village & Post Ward-1(4), –Khandsa, Gurgaon, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan :Fhdps0289C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(37)Section 144Section 270ASection 28Section 57

No.3697 & 3696/Del/2023 AY: 2019-20 Deducted at Source (TDS). Assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny to examine claim of refund coupled with disclosure of substantially lower receipts in return, vis-à-vis, 26AS. It is alleged by the Assessing Officer that various statutory notices issued to the assessee

Dara Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3696/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Section 10(37)Section 144Section 270ASection 28Section 57

Je Energy Ventures Private Limited, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 513/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 92B

appeal under consideration are, the assessee had filed its return of income declaring total loss of Rs.834,02,439/- and case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, the notices u/s 143(3) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. The assessee is engaged

Lakshmieshwari Devi Potlapadu, Kurnool vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Kurnool

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

ITA 437/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.437/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Lakshmieshwari Devi Vs. Income Tax Officer Potlapadu Ward 1 Kurnool Kurnool Pan:Ahkpp4795Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ch Rajeswara Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 02/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri CH Rajeswara Reddy, DR

Section 143(2)Section 144

Lakshmieshwari Devi Potlapadu e-filed her return of income on 13.11.2017 declaring total income at Rs.5,13,380/-. The case was selected for complete Scrutiny assessment through CASS for the financial year 2018-19. Accordingly, statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were issued

Societe Generale Global Solution Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1028/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Rony Antony, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R

Section 1Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 250Section 44ASection 90

vide dated: 29.06.2021 vide Page No. 88 of the factual Paper Book it was clearly mentioned that “Since it is a complete scrutiny, further queries may arise during the course of assessment proceedings”. Still, no query on this issue was ever raised during the assessment proceedings; • Order

Asian Health and Nutri Foods Private Limited, Chennai vs. Iti, Circle 1(1), Salem

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

ITA 971/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble Judicial Membe & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 971/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Asian Health & Nutri Foods V. Circle -1(1), Private Limited, Salem. No. 959/1A, K S Road, Sooravarikandigal, Sirupuzhalpettai (Post), Gummidippondi, Chennai, Thiruvallur – 601 201 [Pan:Aadca-6299-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hemabhupal, Jcit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. HemaBhupal, JCIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 264Section 270A

return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 31.10.2017 admitting a loss of Rs.46,91,999/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was served on 25.09.2018. The Assessing Officer concluded the assessment by passing the order U/s.143