← All Phrases

“draft assessment order”

Assessment ProceduresSection 144CSection 144C4,773 judgments

The decision most relied on for draft assessment order is ACIT v. Serajuddin & Co. (454 ITR 312), cited in 580 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on draft assessment order

ACIT v. Serajuddin & Co.
454 ITR 312 · 2023 · High Court
580
citing judgments

Approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act is mandatory for assessment orders in search cases. While elaborate reasons for approval are not required, the approving authority must provide some indication that it has examined the draft orders and found them to meet the requirements of law.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Subodh Agarwal
149 Taxmann.com 373 · 2023 · High Court
194
citing judgments

Approval of draft assessment orders under Section 153D must be granted with due application of mind, not mechanically. Approving multiple cases, such as 38 in a single day, without proper scrutiny amounts to mechanical approval, rendering the assessment invalid.

Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP
369 ITR 113 · 2014 · High Court
140
citing judgments

Passing a final assessment order under Section 143(3) directly, without first issuing a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) for an eligible assessee, constitutes a fundamental jurisdictional defect. This defect cannot be cured by a subsequent corrigendum, especially if issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C. ET Compagnie v. Union of India
388 ITR 383 · 2016 · High Court
71
citing judgments

Failure to issue a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) makes the final assessment order illegal and beyond jurisdiction. Non-compliance with Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directions renders the final assessment order bad in law.

JCB India Ltd. v. DCIT
398 ITR 189 · 2017 · High Court
49
citing judgments

The requirement to pass a draft assessment order under Section 144C of the Act is mandatory. A final assessment order issued without such a draft order is a nullity, constituting an incurable jurisdictional error that cannot be saved by Section 292B, even in set-aside proceedings following an ITAT remand.

Aggarwal v. NFAC
127 Taxmann.com 637 · High Court
34
citing judgments

Denying a personal hearing when specifically requested, especially after a search and during a pandemic, violates the principles of natural justice. The assessment and appellate proceedings themselves were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hire Purchase (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC
128 Taxmann.com 190 · High Court
34
citing judgments

Failure to grant a personal hearing to an assessee when income is likely to be varied based on submitted evidence violates the principles of natural justice and renders the assessment order invalid.

Chandrakant Dharia v. ITO
469 ITR 262 · Reported
34
citing judgments

An adverse assessment order cannot be passed without granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the taxpayer. Where income is to be varied based on evidence, a personal hearing is mandatory.

Judgments citing draft assessment order

Sh. Rajinder Singh Bedi, Chandigarh vs. DCIT (Intl. Taxation), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 538/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 538/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Rajinder Singh Bedi, The Dcit, (Int.Taxation ), 1368, Sector 40-B, Vs Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Afwpb3355A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)

Feet) Sq.Feet(in Rs.) Assessee on the basis of 528.125 15000 3302.51 821 Registered Valuer's report DVO 528.125 7073 2981.44 339 Draft Assessment Order 528.125 3621 (based on 3302.51 350 Circle rate Final Assessment Order 528.125 3621 . 2000 350 4. A perusal of the above detail would indicate that ... Income Tax Act, 1961 1 .Background of the proceedings before DRP- The present proceedings arise with reference to the draft assessment order under section 144C of the Income Tax Act 1961 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation-Chandigarh. The assessee has filed grounds of objections under section

Pos-Hyundai Steel Manufacturing India Private Limited, Kanchipuram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Taxof Income Tax Circle 1 Ltu, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2485/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2485/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Pos – Hyundai Steel Manufacturing Deputy Commissioner Of Income India Private Limited, Vs. Tax, F-70, Sipcot Industrial Park, Circle -1, Ltu, Irungattukottai S.O., Chennai. Kanchipuram – 602 117. [Pan:Aaacp-6484-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. B. Srinath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

rectification order and reduced the quantum of adjustment from Rs.5,62,73,439/- to Rs.1,97,98,470/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order u/s.144C of the Act on 27.09.2023 making the TP adjustment. The assessee filed objections against draft assessment order before the DRP-2, Bangalore

Skylark Hatcheries Private Limited, Urlana Kalan, Israna, Panipat vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2546/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalskylark Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit Urlana Kalan, Israna, Central Circle, Karnal Panipat, Haryana Haryana Pan: Aahcs9027M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate & Ms. Uma Upadhyay, Ca Revenue By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 Gurgaon [‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 07/07/2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessment Proceedings Have Been Initiated Against The Assessee Pursuant To A Search & Seizure

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153D

granted on the same day i.e. on 28.12.2019by JCIT. It is surprising that JCIT has been able to go through the draft assessment orders, appraisal reports and other related materials for a minimum of 21 cases on the same day. We use the word “minimum of 21cases” because this ... submissions of the assessee would be innumerable. As observed above, the JCIT should have gone through them with reference to the draft assessment orders before granting approval. We are not aware about the nature and issues involved in the other cases and other assessment years and also how they were

Dev Wine Sales Corporation, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2398/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Dev Wine Sales Corporation, Vs. Dcit, 10A/15 Shakti Nagar, Circle-Ii, New Delhi Faridabad Pin 1100 19 Pan No. Aalfd1161A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Learned Authorised Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that as per reply dated 03.02.2025 under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, draft assessment order in this case was communicated vide official email. The consolidated letter dated 27.09.2021 is for assessment years 2016-17 to 2020-21 was also issued ... From examination of record in the light of light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that submission of draft assessment order for approval under Section 153D dated 26.09.2021 is as under: 5 10. Approval under Section 153D dated 27.09.2021 is as under: 11. A Co-ordinate Bench

Jindal Green Crop Intl. Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-08, New Delhi

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

ITA 1590/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 1580/Del/2022 (Ay 2014-15) Ita No. 1582/Del/2022 (Ay 2016-17) Dalip Jindal, Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aaapj3957F) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No. 1584/Del/2022 (Ay 2015-16) Faqir Chand Dalip Kumar, Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aadff8073B) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No. 1587/Del/2022 (Ay 2016-17) Sg Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aamcs9393R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv., Shri Aman Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 153D

nature. Furthermore, the Additional CIT failed to consider any seized material which have been relied upon by the AO while framing the draft assessment orders in the case of the assessee. A bare perusal of the letter dated 08.12.2018 of the Additional CIT of approval would show that the Additional ... consideration of merits in proposed additions failed to consider any seized material which have been relied upon by the AO while framing the draft assessment orders in the case of the assessee has proceeded to grant a simplicitor approval. This approach of the Additional CIT has rendered approval

Jindal Green Crop Intl. Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-08, New Delhi

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

ITA 1589/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 1580/Del/2022 (Ay 2014-15) Ita No. 1582/Del/2022 (Ay 2016-17) Dalip Jindal, Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aaapj3957F) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No. 1584/Del/2022 (Ay 2015-16) Faqir Chand Dalip Kumar, Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aadff8073B) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No. 1587/Del/2022 (Ay 2016-17) Sg Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aamcs9393R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv., Shri Aman Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 153D

nature. Furthermore, the Additional CIT failed to consider any seized material which have been relied upon by the AO while framing the draft assessment orders in the case of the assessee. A bare perusal of the letter dated 08.12.2018 of the Additional CIT of approval would show that the Additional ... consideration of merits in proposed additions failed to consider any seized material which have been relied upon by the AO while framing the draft assessment orders in the case of the assessee has proceeded to grant a simplicitor approval. This approach of the Additional CIT has rendered approval

Jindal Green Crop Intl. Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-08, Delhi

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

ITA 1588/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 1580/Del/2022 (Ay 2014-15) Ita No. 1582/Del/2022 (Ay 2016-17) Dalip Jindal, Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aaapj3957F) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No. 1584/Del/2022 (Ay 2015-16) Faqir Chand Dalip Kumar, Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aadff8073B) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No. 1587/Del/2022 (Ay 2016-17) Sg Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aamcs9393R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv., Shri Aman Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 153D

nature. Furthermore, the Additional CIT failed to consider any seized material which have been relied upon by the AO while framing the draft assessment orders in the case of the assessee. A bare perusal of the letter dated 08.12.2018 of the Additional CIT of approval would show that the Additional ... consideration of merits in proposed additions failed to consider any seized material which have been relied upon by the AO while framing the draft assessment orders in the case of the assessee has proceeded to grant a simplicitor approval. This approach of the Additional CIT has rendered approval

Sg Polyplast Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-08, New Delhi

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

ITA 1587/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 1580/Del/2022 (Ay 2014-15) Ita No. 1582/Del/2022 (Ay 2016-17) Dalip Jindal, Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aaapj3957F) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No. 1584/Del/2022 (Ay 2015-16) Faqir Chand Dalip Kumar, Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aadff8073B) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No. 1587/Del/2022 (Ay 2016-17) Sg Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aamcs9393R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv., Shri Aman Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 153D

nature. Furthermore, the Additional CIT failed to consider any seized material which have been relied upon by the AO while framing the draft assessment orders in the case of the assessee. A bare perusal of the letter dated 08.12.2018 of the Additional CIT of approval would show that the Additional ... consideration of merits in proposed additions failed to consider any seized material which have been relied upon by the AO while framing the draft assessment orders in the case of the assessee has proceeded to grant a simplicitor approval. This approach of the Additional CIT has rendered approval

Sg Polyplast Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-08, New Delhi

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

ITA 1586/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 1580/Del/2022 (Ay 2014-15) Ita No. 1582/Del/2022 (Ay 2016-17) Dalip Jindal, Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aaapj3957F) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No. 1584/Del/2022 (Ay 2015-16) Faqir Chand Dalip Kumar, Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aadff8073B) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No. 1587/Del/2022 (Ay 2016-17) Sg Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aamcs9393R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv., Shri Aman Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 153D

nature. Furthermore, the Additional CIT failed to consider any seized material which have been relied upon by the AO while framing the draft assessment orders in the case of the assessee. A bare perusal of the letter dated 08.12.2018 of the Additional CIT of approval would show that the Additional ... consideration of merits in proposed additions failed to consider any seized material which have been relied upon by the AO while framing the draft assessment orders in the case of the assessee has proceeded to grant a simplicitor approval. This approach of the Additional CIT has rendered approval

Faqir Chand Dalip Kumar, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-08/, New Delhi

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

ITA 1585/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 1580/Del/2022 (Ay 2014-15) Ita No. 1582/Del/2022 (Ay 2016-17) Dalip Jindal, Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aaapj3957F) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No. 1584/Del/2022 (Ay 2015-16) Faqir Chand Dalip Kumar, Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aadff8073B) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No. 1587/Del/2022 (Ay 2016-17) Sg Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aamcs9393R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv., Shri Aman Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 153D

nature. Furthermore, the Additional CIT failed to consider any seized material which have been relied upon by the AO while framing the draft assessment orders in the case of the assessee. A bare perusal of the letter dated 08.12.2018 of the Additional CIT of approval would show that the Additional ... consideration of merits in proposed additions failed to consider any seized material which have been relied upon by the AO while framing the draft assessment orders in the case of the assessee has proceeded to grant a simplicitor approval. This approach of the Additional CIT has rendered approval

Faqir Chand Dalip Kumar, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-08, New Delhi

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

ITA 1584/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 1580/Del/2022 (Ay 2014-15) Ita No. 1582/Del/2022 (Ay 2016-17) Dalip Jindal, Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aaapj3957F) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No. 1584/Del/2022 (Ay 2015-16) Faqir Chand Dalip Kumar, Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aadff8073B) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No. 1587/Del/2022 (Ay 2016-17) Sg Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aamcs9393R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv., Shri Aman Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 153D

nature. Furthermore, the Additional CIT failed to consider any seized material which have been relied upon by the AO while framing the draft assessment orders in the case of the assessee. A bare perusal of the letter dated 08.12.2018 of the Additional CIT of approval would show that the Additional ... consideration of merits in proposed additions failed to consider any seized material which have been relied upon by the AO while framing the draft assessment orders in the case of the assessee has proceeded to grant a simplicitor approval. This approach of the Additional CIT has rendered approval

Faqir Chand Dalip Kumar, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-08, New Delhi

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

ITA 1583/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 1580/Del/2022 (Ay 2014-15) Ita No. 1582/Del/2022 (Ay 2016-17) Dalip Jindal, Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aaapj3957F) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No. 1584/Del/2022 (Ay 2015-16) Faqir Chand Dalip Kumar, Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aadff8073B) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No. 1587/Del/2022 (Ay 2016-17) Sg Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aamcs9393R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv., Shri Aman Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 153D

nature. Furthermore, the Additional CIT failed to consider any seized material which have been relied upon by the AO while framing the draft assessment orders in the case of the assessee. A bare perusal of the letter dated 08.12.2018 of the Additional CIT of approval would show that the Additional ... consideration of merits in proposed additions failed to consider any seized material which have been relied upon by the AO while framing the draft assessment orders in the case of the assessee has proceeded to grant a simplicitor approval. This approach of the Additional CIT has rendered approval

Dalip Jindal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-08, New Delhi

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

ITA 1582/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 1580/Del/2022 (Ay 2014-15) Ita No. 1582/Del/2022 (Ay 2016-17) Dalip Jindal, Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aaapj3957F) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No. 1584/Del/2022 (Ay 2015-16) Faqir Chand Dalip Kumar, Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aadff8073B) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No. 1587/Del/2022 (Ay 2016-17) Sg Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aamcs9393R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv., Shri Aman Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 153D

nature. Furthermore, the Additional CIT failed to consider any seized material which have been relied upon by the AO while framing the draft assessment orders in the case of the assessee. A bare perusal of the letter dated 08.12.2018 of the Additional CIT of approval would show that the Additional ... consideration of merits in proposed additions failed to consider any seized material which have been relied upon by the AO while framing the draft assessment orders in the case of the assessee has proceeded to grant a simplicitor approval. This approach of the Additional CIT has rendered approval

Dalip Jindal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-08, New Delhi

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

ITA 1581/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 1580/Del/2022 (Ay 2014-15) Ita No. 1582/Del/2022 (Ay 2016-17) Dalip Jindal, Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aaapj3957F) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No. 1584/Del/2022 (Ay 2015-16) Faqir Chand Dalip Kumar, Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aadff8073B) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No. 1587/Del/2022 (Ay 2016-17) Sg Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aamcs9393R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv., Shri Aman Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 153D

nature. Furthermore, the Additional CIT failed to consider any seized material which have been relied upon by the AO while framing the draft assessment orders in the case of the assessee. A bare perusal of the letter dated 08.12.2018 of the Additional CIT of approval would show that the Additional ... consideration of merits in proposed additions failed to consider any seized material which have been relied upon by the AO while framing the draft assessment orders in the case of the assessee has proceeded to grant a simplicitor approval. This approach of the Additional CIT has rendered approval

Dalip Jindal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-08, New Delhi

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

ITA 1580/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 1580/Del/2022 (Ay 2014-15) Ita No. 1582/Del/2022 (Ay 2016-17) Dalip Jindal, Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aaapj3957F) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No. 1584/Del/2022 (Ay 2015-16) Faqir Chand Dalip Kumar, Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aadff8073B) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No. 1587/Del/2022 (Ay 2016-17) Sg Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aamcs9393R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv., Shri Aman Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 153D

nature. Furthermore, the Additional CIT failed to consider any seized material which have been relied upon by the AO while framing the draft assessment orders in the case of the assessee. A bare perusal of the letter dated 08.12.2018 of the Additional CIT of approval would show that the Additional ... consideration of merits in proposed additions failed to consider any seized material which have been relied upon by the AO while framing the draft assessment orders in the case of the assessee has proceeded to grant a simplicitor approval. This approach of the Additional CIT has rendered approval

Dalip Jindal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-08, New Delhi

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

ITA 1579/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 1580/Del/2022 (Ay 2014-15) Ita No. 1582/Del/2022 (Ay 2016-17) Dalip Jindal, Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aaapj3957F) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No. 1584/Del/2022 (Ay 2015-16) Faqir Chand Dalip Kumar, Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aadff8073B) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No. 1587/Del/2022 (Ay 2016-17) Sg Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aamcs9393R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv., Shri Aman Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 153D

nature. Furthermore, the Additional CIT failed to consider any seized material which have been relied upon by the AO while framing the draft assessment orders in the case of the assessee. A bare perusal of the letter dated 08.12.2018 of the Additional CIT of approval would show that the Additional ... consideration of merits in proposed additions failed to consider any seized material which have been relied upon by the AO while framing the draft assessment orders in the case of the assessee has proceeded to grant a simplicitor approval. This approach of the Additional CIT has rendered approval

DCIT, Central Circle-8, Delhi vs. Dalip Jindal Prop. Jindal Agro International, Delhi

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

ITA 2040/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 1580/Del/2022 (Ay 2014-15) Ita No. 1582/Del/2022 (Ay 2016-17) Dalip Jindal, Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aaapj3957F) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No. 1584/Del/2022 (Ay 2015-16) Faqir Chand Dalip Kumar, Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aadff8073B) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No. 1587/Del/2022 (Ay 2016-17) Sg Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-08, Lu-11, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi (Pan:- Aamcs9393R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv., Shri Aman Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 153D

nature. Furthermore, the Additional CIT failed to consider any seized material which have been relied upon by the AO while framing the draft assessment orders in the case of the assessee. A bare perusal of the letter dated 08.12.2018 of the Additional CIT of approval would show that the Additional ... consideration of merits in proposed additions failed to consider any seized material which have been relied upon by the AO while framing the draft assessment orders in the case of the assessee has proceeded to grant a simplicitor approval. This approach of the Additional CIT has rendered approval

Wika Instruments India Private Limited, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2767/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2767/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Wika Instruments India V The Dcit, Private Limited, S. Circle-12, Pune. Hi-Cliff Industrial Estate, Kesnand, Pune – 412207. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaacw2665A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Mutha – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act, Dated 25.10.2024 To Give Effect To The Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel(Drp) Passed U/S.144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 26.09.2024 Emanating From Draft Assessment Order Under Section 144C(1) Of

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(11)Section 144C(5)

give effect to the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP) passed u/s.144C(5) of the Act, dated 26.09.2024 emanating from Draft Assessment Order under section 144C(1) of ITA No.2767/PUN/2024 [A] the Act, dated 26.12.2023. The Assessee has filed Revised Grounds of appeal as under : “Revised Grounds of appeal ... appeal in the interest of justice.” Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, Draft Assessment Order u/s.144C(1) of the Act was passed on 26.12.2023. In the said Draft Assessment Order in para 5, it is categorically mentioned “therefore, the income

Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 7 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 8 and 9 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2436/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh&Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Acit, Circle-7(1)(1), Private Limited, 951-A, Rational House, Vs Aayakarbhawan, Mumbai- Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, 400020. Mumbai-400025. [Pan No. Aafca6819F] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 254(1)Section 92C

order and in not proposing such adjustment in the show cause notice dated 26 September 2021 issued for the adjustments proposed in the draft assessment order and accordingly, draft assessment order has been passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant regarding this issue which ... being upheld by us : 5.2 Discussion & Direction of the DRP : The AO had discussed the issue in para 5.1 to 5.5 of the draft assessment order. He has noticed from note 2(vii) of Schedule 14 to final accounts that employee costs include the cost of restrictive stock unit

Nanneboyina Kalyan Chakravarthy, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, (Ward It), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam02 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.104/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Nanneboyina Kalyan Chakravarthy V. Income Tax Officer C/O. C.R. Hemanthkumar Ward International Taxation Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex. H.No 9-14-4/7, Flat No. 7 M.G. Road, Vijayawada Sowbhagyaapartments Andhra Pradesh – 520002 Cbm Compound, Vip Road Andhra Pradesh - 530003 [Pan: Cuepk3530P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

cash deposits twice while framing the order under section 148A(d) of the Act. Ld. AO without considering the objections, passed a draft Assessment Order under section 144C(1) of the Act. Assessee raised his objections before Dispute Resolution Panel (in short “Ld.DRP”) wherein the Ld. DRP dismissed the objections ... show-cause notice. Finally, it was also noticed that Ld. AO made an addition for Rs. 26,72,500/- only while framing the draft Assessment Order. In these circumstances, we find the Ld. AO has erred in reopening the assessment without adhering to the time limit to the issue