← All Phrases

“computer assisted scrutiny selection”

Assessment ProceduresSection 143(3)Section 143(3)128 judgments

Judgments citing computer assisted scrutiny selection

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Surat

ITA 453/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.453/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Ward-2(3)(8), Prop. M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Surat. Office No.401, Floor, H.No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqupj6439L Appellant By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 08/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

matter, it is submitted that the assessee's case for A.Y. 2013-14 has been selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny selection (CASS). At that time the PAN of the assessee lies with ITO, Kishangadh. Therefore considering the time barring nature of the case, notice was issued ... stated by way of written submission that the assessee's case for assessment year (A.Y.) 2013-14 has been selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny selection (CASS). At that time the PAN of the assessee lies with ITO, Kishangadh. Therefore, considering the time barring nature of the case, notice

M/S Bindra Developers Private Limited, Ferozepur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Ferozepur

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 190/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.190/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250o

hearing of this appeal.” 4. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short CASS). In the return, assessee was declared income at Rs.56,22,000/-. The statutory notice u/s 143(2) was issued

Desirazu Sundara Siva Rao, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

ITA 633/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 54Section 54F

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) claimed by the assessee, when the case of the assessee was selected for computer assisted scrutiny selection (CASS) under the limited scrutiny category. 3. The assessee in both these appeals are by father and son i.e., Shri. Desirazu Sundara Siva

Nagaraj Desirazu, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

ITA 449/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 54Section 54F

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) claimed by the assessee, when the case of the assessee was selected for computer assisted scrutiny selection (CASS) under the limited scrutiny category. 3. The assessee in both these appeals are by father and son i.e., Shri. Desirazu Sundara Siva

Mapei Construction Products (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 283/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 283/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mapei Construction Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant A01 & B01, Solus Jain Commissioner Of Heights, Income Tax, 1St Floor, 1St Cross, Circle 4 (1)(2), J C Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 002. Pan: Aahcm0464A Appellant Respondent : Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, Assessee By Ca : Shri Janardhan, Addl. Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 24/03/2021 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Under National Assessment Centre, New Delhi, Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 143(3A) & (3B) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2016- 17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Jurisdiction 1.1. That The Learned Lower Authorities Erred In Law & On Facts In Referring The Case To The Learned Transfer Pricing

For Respondent: Shri S. Ramasubramanyam
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92C

reference to the TPO only under the circumstances laid out in this Instruction. 3.2 All cases selected for scrutiny, either under the Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection [CASS] system or under the compulsory manual selection system (in accordance with the CBDT's annual instructions in this regard for example, Instruction

Aneeka Universal Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-9, Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7115/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 143(3)Section 254(2)Section 263Section 57

Year 2013-14 on 30.09.2013 declaring total income of INR 6,98,890/-. The case of the Appellant was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) on account of large deduction claim under Section 57 of the Act and large amount of share application money received against

Bhavani Gems P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -5, Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 766/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Bhavani Gems Private Limited The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Dw–1370, G–Block West Core, Tax–5, Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai–400 020 Mumbai–400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecb9471D

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

reference to the TPO only under the circumstances laid out in this Instruction. 3.2 All cases selected for scrutiny, either under the Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection [CASS] system or under the compulsory manual selection system (in accordance with the CBDT's annual instructions in this regard -for example. Instruction

Henkel Adhesives Technologies, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT-6, Mumbai

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1382/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar (AR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253(3)Section 263

filed return of income on 29.11.2014 declaring total income of INR 67,63,88,620/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under the Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection and assessment was framed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Act vide assessment order, dated 31.10.2018, („hereinafter referred