https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78554 Scrutiny selection under CBDT instructions was upheld because, at the return-picking stage, only a prima facie view is required and not a final merits determination. The concurrent factual findings that the assessee's case was selected in accordance with the applicable instructions were not shown to be perverse, and the later position on the exact quantum of capital introduced did not invalidate the assessment under Section 143(3). In the absence of perversity, no substantial question of law arose, so the challenge to the scrutiny selection failed and the appeal was rejected against the assessee. en-us Mon, 22 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Nov 2010 10:21:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78554 Scrutiny selection under CBDT instructions was upheld because, at the return-picking stage, only a prima facie view is required and not a final merits determination. The concurrent factual findings that the assessee's case was selected in accordance with the applicable instructions were not shown to be perverse, and the later position on the exact quantum of capital introduced did not invalidate the assessment under Section 143(3). In the absence of perversity, no substantial question of law arose, so the challenge to the scrutiny selection failed and the appeal was rejected against the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 22 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78554