“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

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

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

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

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

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

Veerareddy Gogula, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 216/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Satyasai Rath, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(47)Section 263Section 53A

Capital Gain in pursuant to the joint development agreement entered into between the co-owner and the developer. He has referred to the draft assessment order as well as the final assessment order and submitted that the Assessing Officer has discussed this issue on facts as well ... part of the Assessing Officer but the Assessing Officer has conducted a due and proper inquiry. The learned AR has referred the draft assessment order placed at page 152 of the paper book and submitted that at the time of Page 7 of 26 ITA 209 of 2024 and others

Konda Srinivasa Reddy, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 209/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Satyasai Rath, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(47)Section 263Section 53A

Chand Beebi, Palakkad vs. DCIT, Circle Int.Tax, Kochi

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

ITA 1057/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pathmanathn K.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 148

cent as against Rs. 10,00,000/- adopted by the appellant. On receipt of the draft assessment order the appellant filed objections before the DRP. The DRP had rejected the above objections by holding that the valuation report filed by the assessee is not from the District Valuation Officer

Ab Inbev Gcc Services India Private Limited, Bangalore, Karnataka vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1635/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.1635/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2020-21

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153Section 92B

vide its Order dated 29.03.2023 after receipt of the Order under section 92CA(3) of the Act, the AO proceeded to pass draft Assessment Order and made adjustment towards international transaction for Rs.42,12,16,356/-. Further, on verification of the financial statement of note No.2, 12.14, it was seen ... passed Draft Order under section 144C(1) of the Act on 22.08.2023. 5. Aggrieved from the above proposed addition against the draft Assessment Order, assessee filed objection before the learned DRP. On 20.09.2023 vide its objections dated 19.09.2023 which is placed at appeal set page Nos.93 to 341 justifying

DCIT-3(1), Bhopal vs. Manidhari Jewellers, Bhopal

The appeal are allowed

ITA 533/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-3(1), Manidhari Jewellers, बनाम/ Bhopal Room No.202, Vs. Metro Walk Bulding, Bitten Market, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Pan: Abafm6546L) (Revenue) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 04Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 25Section 250Section 253

copies of bank statement already presented. Page 12 of 35 DCIT-3(1) V/s Manidhari Jewellers ITA No. 533/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 2.10 That a draft assessment order containing the addition of Rs.2,34,50,000/- u/s 68 of the Act was sent to the assessee vide SCN dated 05.05.2023. That

Bock Compressors India Private, Bengaluru vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle - 1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1484/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarassessment Year 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ves, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Uday Kakne, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144(5)Section 144CSection 234BSection 253Section 270ASection 920Section 92ASection 92C

being cumulative adjustment on account of sale of goods and mark up respectively. The Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order vide order dated 21-09-2023. The assessee being aggrieved by the draft assessment order dated 21-09-2023 filed objection before DRP. The DRP vide order dated ... Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 4,59,51,095/- on account of sale of goods as discussed in the draft assessment order to the income of the assessee for assessment year under consideration. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before

Toyota Boshoku Automotive India Private Limited, Bidadi vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Or the DCIT, Circle - 7(1)(1), Koramangala

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

ITA 1539/BANG/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2025

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri K.R Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 234ASection 270A

assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment wherein certain addition on account of TP adjustment was made. The AO while finalising the draft assessment order computed the total income after taking into account the income computed under intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act and addition of TP adjustment ... Page 23 of 37 intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and was not a variation proposed by the AO in the draft assessment order passed under section 144C(1) of the Act. The learned DRP noted that the CPC determined the disallowance, not the AO, and since

Eastspring Investments India Equity Open Limited, Mauritius vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax - International Taxation Circle 2(2)(1) - Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 1219/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy Sshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

allows the assessee to set off the lower taxable losses against the higher taxable gains. 5. The AO, vide draft assessment order dated 20.03.2024 passed under Section 144C(1) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that in the present case, the assessee has capital ... short-term capital gains 1,72,09,68,685 3,16,31,410 6. As a result, the AO vide draft assessment order, computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.1484,76,27,583/-, after making an addition of short-term capital gains amounting to Rs.172.09 crore taxable

Molvizadah Sons India Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-16(1), Delhi

ITA 5297/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 144C(10)Section 92C

vide its order dated 28.10.2023 made certain adjustments of Rs.4,29,49,937/-. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order on 11.12.2023. 3. Aggrieved with the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel and assailed the draft assessment order of the Assessing

Janardhan Kapur, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward 29(1), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4754/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2019-20 Janardhan Kapur, Vs Ito, C/O Sanjiv Sapra & Associates Llp, Ward-29(1), Chartered Accountants, Delhi. C-763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi – 110 025. Pan: Aojpk8128G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv Sapra, Fca Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.05.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.09.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’, For Short) In Appeal No.Nfac/2018-19/10092978 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 23.09.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. On Hearing Both The Sides, We Find That Amongst Other Grounds On Merits The Assessee Has Raised Ground No.2. This Ground Was Not Raised Before The Cit(A). However, Before Us, A Separate Application Is Moved Requesting To Raise This As An Additional Ground. Considering That The Ground No. 2 Questions The Assumption Of Jurisdiction To Pass Final Assessment Order & Can Be Decided On The Basis Of Admitted Facts, The Same Is Admitted. 3. The Ground No.2 As Raised Is Reproduced Below:- “That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3)/144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act) Was Without Jurisdiction, Null & Void Since No Prior Draft Assessment Order As Required Under Section 144C(1) Was Passed & Provided To The Appellant Being A Non- Resident & “Eligible Assessee” As Per Section 144C(15)(B)(Ii) Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sapra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(15)(b)

Officer (AO) under section 143(3)/144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) was without jurisdiction, null and void since no prior draft assessment order as required under section 144C(1) was passed and provided to the Appellant being a non- resident and “eligible assessee” as per section 144C ... thus, for the purpose of section 144C the AO was required to first issue a draft assessment order. However, we find that the AO issued a final assessment order u/s 143(3)/144B of the Act and raised the income-tax demand and also initiated penalty proceedings

Nxp India P.Ltd(Formerly Known As Freescale Semiconductor India Pvt. Ltd), New Delhi vs. JCIT Range-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5763/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 92Section 92C

suggested to make an addition of Rs.9,45,75,460/- on account of Arm's Length Price. The Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order. 3. Against the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections to the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (in short ‘DRP'). The DRP vide its order dated

Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Rajkot vs. Symbosa Granito Private Limited, Wankaner

ITA 806/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.806/Rjt/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Symbosa Granite Pvt. Limited, Tax, Circle - 1(1), Rajkot Room No. 502,Aaykar Bhavan, Survey No. 125P1/P2,126,131P1/P2/P3, Race Course Road, Village- Matel, Rajkot - 300001 Wankaner- 363621(Gujarat) (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Pungliya, Ld. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Bench: Captiond Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Dated 13.08.2024,Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 263 & 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Vide Order Dated 31.03.2022.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pungliya, Ld. CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 68

show cause notice but a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. It is not a show cause notice or a draft assessment order as mandated u/s 144B(xvi)(a), 144B(xvi)(b), and 144B(xvi)(c) of the Act, the relevant provisions are reproduced below: "Faceless Assessment. 144B ... shall be made in a faceless manner as per the following procedure, namely: (xvi) the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall examine the draft assessment order in accordance with the risk management strategy specified by the Board, according to which, in case no variation prejudicial to the interest of assessee

Shri Bharatbhushan Kishanlal Gupta, Gandhidham vs. The ITO- International Taxation, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 269/RJT/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lalsaini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 269/Rjt/2019 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Bharatbhushan Kishanlal Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Gupta, (International Taxation) Prop. Of Aqua Shipping, Suit - Gandhidham – 370210 100, Grain Merchant Association Bldg., 2Nd Floor, Plot No. 297, Wd – 12B, Gandhidham – 370001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afcpg3849N (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr. DR

Section 144CSection 172Section 172(4)Section 172(5)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

order while allowing the writ petition notwithstanding that the Petitioner had a statutory remedy available to it. 45. For the above reasons, the draft assessment order dated 28th March, 2014 and the final assessment order dated 28th January, 2015 passed by the AO are held to be void ab initio ... Madras), held that where pursuant to order of TPO, Assessing Officer passed a final order under section 143(3) instead of passing a draft assessment order under section 144C, there being violation of procedure prescribed under Act, impugned order was to be set aside and, in such a case, even

M R Patel and Sons, South Tower, Ambli Bopal Road vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan (Vejalpur), Nr Sachin Tower, Anandnagar Prahladnagar Road, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 523/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

course of assessment proceedings, details have been called for from the assessee. As the submission of the assessee was not visibile, a draft assessment order has been sent based on the details available on record and the reasons recorded. In response to this the assessee has made submission

Atul Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 38/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

passed an order dated 30.01.2021 under section 92CA(3) proposing an adjustment of Rs.37,77,80,391/-. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued the draft assessment order dated 24.09.2021 under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act, computing the total income at Rs.216,01,40,460/- and book

Kony Inc, United States of America vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 1(2), Chennai, Tamil Nadu

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 185/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 4

section 4(b) of India-USA DTAA and taxed the same at 10%. 3. The view taken by the AO in the draft assessment order was confirmed by the DRP in its directions dated 29.11.2024. Pursuant to the DRP’s direction, the impugned final assessment order was passed

Ramel Ajit Singh, Navi Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department

In the result, the ground of appeal

ITA 175/MUM/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Blems. Padmavathy S, Hon’Ble(Physical Hearing) Ramel Ajit Singh Income Tax Officer, Ward No.28(2)(1), Building No. A6, 3Rd Floor Vashi, Mumbai. Swagat Chs,Plot No. 14 Vs Nerul (W),Navi Mumbai-400706 Maharashtra

Section 139Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 254(1)

Credit Society treated the entire cash 2 RAMEL AJIT SINGH deposits of Rs.5,87,678/- as unexplained cash credit. The Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order on 24.01.2022 by proposing such addition. In response to draft assessment order, the Assessing Officer recorded that the assessee furnished bank statements, computation ... Credit Society. The Assessing Officer treated such deposited as unexplained cash deposits under section 68 of the Act. On the service of draft assessment order, the assessee filed his objections / explanation and also furnished bank statements, computation of total income, profit andloss account and balance sheet. The assessee also filed

Here Solutions India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 10 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the asessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5918/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shrianikesh Banerjee () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 92D

assessee’s case was taken for scrutiny and the matter referred to the TPO related to transaction with AE. Finally, the draft assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) of the Act was passed on 11/12/2017 proposing to assess total income of assessee for the impugned

American Chemical Society, Usa vs. DCIT (International Tax), Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1160/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

same are pending necessary adjudication before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. In view of the aforesaid, the AO passed the draft assessment order wherein amount of Rs. 46,14,79,249/- was brought to tax as royalty income in the hands of the assessee. 7 American Chemical Society

Saurabh Jayant Bhaga, Raigad Panvel vs. ITO Ward-1, Panvel

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2718/PUN/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2717 & 2718/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Saurabh Jayant Bhagat, The Income Tax Officer, A-806, Balaji Aangan, Nr. S T V Panvel. Depot, Panvel Raigad–410206. S. Maharashtra. Pan: Aklpb9996P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Gaurang Khakhkhar – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Abhinay Kumbhar & Shri Vinod Pawar – Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Date 31.05.2024 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) The Honorable Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings Without Communicating The Reason For Reopening Of Assessment.

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

erred has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the reassessment order with the above referred addition after issuing draft assessment order wherein null addition is proposed by Ld' Assessing officer. 6) That the order passed by the Ld.CIT u/s.250 of the I.T.Act, 1961 was arbitrary