“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(2), Delhi vs. Lk India Pvt Ltd(Now Schneider Electric India Pvt Ltd, Gurugram

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all 7

ITA 2600/DEL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri V. K. Sabharwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 153ASection 153DSection 281B

granting approval the ld. competent authority has mentioned that: “Approval is hereby accorded u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the draft assessment order as amended in the following case, on the basis of the detailed discussion with you time to time, information available on record, facts mentioned ... certified to the undersigned that all information available in AIR/CIB/from other Law Enforcement Agencies have been properly scrutinized by you before finalizing the draft assessment order. Please ensure that penalty is levied under proper section of the Income Tax Act, 1961." 9. The aforesaid observations of the ld. competent authority

Venetian Ldf Projects LLP, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3533/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

conduct faceless assessment in a seamless manner. 169 As per the scheme of faceless assessment, before an assessment order is finalized, a draft assessment order is prepared, which is subject to various inbuilt checks and balances, including but not limited to the assessment being subjected to review by the review

Joice Mary Philip, Kaviyoor vs. DCIT, Trivandrum

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

ITA 240/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Joice Mary Philip .......... Appellant Padijarethil, Kaviyoor, Pathanamthitta 689582 [Pan: Cfepp1777A] Vs. Dcit, Internatonal Taxation .......... Respondent Thiruvananthapuram

For Appellant: Shri Samuel Thomas, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148

proposing to make addition of Rs. 3,19,380/- as unexplained investment made on purchase of property. After receipt of the draft assessment order, the appellant filed objection, before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The fate of the proceedings before the DRP is not known. However, the AO passed final

DCIT(Exemp)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Education and Development Trust, Mumbai

ITA 5954/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 11(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

Bombay)[27-01-2016], the Hon’ble Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the assessee holding that draft assessment order passed without disposing off the objections to reopening of assessment filed by the assessee was not sustainable and without jurisdiction. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment ... reads as under: “11. In the present facts, we find that the draft Assessment order was passed on 30th March, 2015 without having disposed of the Petitioner's objections to the reasons recorded in support of the impugned notice. The reasons were supplied to the Petitioner only on 19th March

Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3 (1), Mumbai

ITA 4249/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR

Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 92C

margin at 11.93% and thus computed the adjustment of Rs.17,15,159/- 3. On receipt of the order of Ld.TPO, the Ld.AO passed draft assessment order on 18/01/2012, wherein along with transfer pricing proposed adjustment, following the disallowances were also proposed by the Ld.AO: Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1 Disallowance ... discount of rupee and foreign currency bonds 8 Disallowance of eSOP expenses 79,28,46,381/- 3. 1. On receipt of the draft assessment order, the assessee intimated the Ld.AO regarding its intention to file appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AO thus passed the final assessment order on 18/01/2012

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4159/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR

Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 92C

Praveen Agrawal, Indore vs. DCIT 4(1) Indore, Indore

ITA 651/IND/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Apr 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Paresh M Joshi & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 57Section 68

115BBE are not applicable in this case. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Draft assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B dated 19.04.2021 having been issued without any Document Identification number (DIN) and without Digital Signature, is nonest ... circumstances of the case fresh enquiries u/s 133(6) having been conducted by the Learned AO after issuance of the draft assessment order dated 19.04.2021, passing of the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144B dated 22.09.2021 without issuing a fresh SCN confronting the appellant with the results of such

ACIT 4 2 1, Mumbai City vs. Iifl Securities, Mumbai City

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

ITA 737/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order dt. 25-03-2022. As per the AO, the assessee was served with the draft assessment order vide show cause dt. 19-03-2022 wherein the assessee was asked to submit its response by 24-03-2022. However, the assessee did not make ... from the assessment order, in spite of issuance of notices from time to time as well as show-cause notice along with the draft assessment order, the assessee has failed to file the necessary explanation and/or documentation in response to the notices issued by the AO and, therefore, basing

ACIT-4 2 1, Mum vs. Iifl Securities Ltd, Mumbai City

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

ITA 722/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3705/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, 3Rd Floor Maker Chamber Iv, Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. Nariman Point, S.O. Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal/Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 144BSection 144CSection 147Section 801B(9)

153/MUM/2024 1. erred in not quashing the final assessment order passed u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Act, even though no draft assessment order under section 144C of the Act was passed. 2. failed to appreciate that variation in Long Term Capital Losses returned is as a consequence

International Air Transport Association, Mumbai (for Sending Notices) vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) - Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3330/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3330/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) International Air V/S. Dcit (It), Circle 2(2)(1), Transport Association बिधम Mumbai C/O Ernst & Young Llp Room No. 1722, 17Th Floor, 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Air India Building, Senapati Bapat Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Dadar (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400021 Maharashtra-400028 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacci4695N Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka and Shri DiveshFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

judicial pronouncements pressed into service by the respective parties. Before proceeding any further, we may herein observe, that though the A.O vide his draft assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(1), dated 27.03.2015 had attributed the entire revenue of USD 2,390,825/- i.e Rs.12

DCIT, International Taxation, Jaipur vs. Kavita Chhugani, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 127/JPR/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Ashish Khandelwal, C.A., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69A

dated: 18.08.2022 declaring total income at Rs. 1, 24,180/-. Then Statutory Notices issued u/s. 142(1) and 143(2) were issued. A draft assessment order was passed in the case of the assessee u/s. 144C (3) of the Act being an eligible assessee for this section. Ultimately, the final

Infoobjects Software India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1499/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1499/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Infoobjects Software India Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Private Ltd. Income Tax, 5-E Patrikayan, 3rd Floor Jhalana Circle-04, Jaipur Institutional Area, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCI8663B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/ Assessee by : Sh. Naman Maloo, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by

For Appellant: Sh. Naman Maloo, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 201Section 40Section 92B(2)

income declared by him in such return of income” v. Assessee had although submitted the said documents before ld. AO before issuing draft assessment order and also before Hon’ble DRP, and ld. DRP had directed ld. AO that if assessee has provided required documents, then assessee company shall

Lalita Devi Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1410/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1410/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Lalita Devi Sharma Murlidhar Sharma Dhani Vs. Harsaura, Baskhoh, Jaipur Baskho, Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: HCPPS 0547 Q प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

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

assessee during the year under consideration and accordingly a final show cause notice was issued to the assessee in the form of draft assessment order thereby proposing the disallowance of claim of Rs. 1,09,08,383/-. g) The said show-cause notice was issued on 15/03/2022 along with ... draft assessment order [as above] through ITBA/ e-mail, requiring the assessee to explain as to why the assessment in his case should not be completed as per the Draft. Assessment Order. The assessee was also required to submit his written. reply/explanation/ objection/ response etc. [through his registered e- filing

Royal Canin India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 6816/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shrivikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeroyal Canin India Pvt Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income- 1401 & 1402, F Wing, 14Th Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Floor, Lotus Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Cts No.185/A, Graham Firth Mumbai-400 020 Compound, Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400 063 Pan: Aadcr4417J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: ShriK.M. Gupta a/w Shri AnmolFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)

price as Nil 2. Intra Group Services Payment – 50% adhoc 80,153,421/- disallowance by the Ld.TPO Thereafter, the Ld. AO passed the draft assessment order dated 20/12/2023 under section 144C(1) of the Act proposing the following additions/disallowances to the returned income of the assessee, against which the assessee ... During the Ld. DRP proceedings, the assessee submitted its detailed contentions on the additions made by the Ld. AO in draft assessment order. Additionally, the Ld. DRP issued a notice under Section 144C (8) dated 26/07/2024, wherein the Ld. DRP proposed to enhance the assessee's income and disallow

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bareilly vs. Ms Shree Bhawani Mills, Shahjahanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed while the Cross

ITA 332/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S Shree Bhawani Mills, Tax, Circle-1, Bareilly Gandhi Ganj, Shahjahanpur, U.P. Pan:Aadfs8573M (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.15/Lkw/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 M/S Shree Bhawani Mills, Gandhi Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Ganj, Shahjahanpur, U.P. Income Tax, Circle-1, Bareilly Pan:Aadfs8573M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act On 7.09.2023 Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao On 30.03.2022 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, CIT DR

Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 46A

Shree Bhawani Mills conclusion, it was submitted that the assessee had only been given 23 hours to furnish its objections to the draft assessment order and therefore, the order of the ld. AO that was passed subsequently were completely against the principles of natural justice. In consideration of the submissions

Mr. Anguraju Sengottuvelan, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1, Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 567/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.567/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Anguraju Sengottuvelan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, Maruthi Vilas, North Street, Ward 1(3), High School Road, Velur, Salem. Namakkal 638 182. [Pan:Aysps6739A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 210 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

made by the assessee in filing the return of income. Further, notice under section 142(1) of the Act, show-cause notice and draft assessment order under section 144 of the Act were also issued and served on the assessee. According to the Assessing Officer, there was no compliance from

M/S. Securekloud Technologies Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3232/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3232/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S. Securekloud Technologies Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Bascon Futura Sv 5Th Floor, Corporate Circle 3(1), 10/1 Venkatanarayana Road, T. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aabcp6266D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M.V. Swaroop, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 27.09.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 18 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Swaroop, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)

order to that effect. 6. The ld. AR Shri M.V. Swaroop, Advocate submits that the assessee filed objections before the DRP against the draft assessment order, but, however, no representation was made due to shifting of assessee’s registered office. He submits that the concerned department of the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. Telekom Malaysia Behard, Malaysia

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2432/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Manju Prasad, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 201(1)Section 250Section 9

regarding the Company not filing its ROI in response to the notices issued under section 148 of the Act. Thereafter, a draft assessment order dated 16th September, 2021 was passed by the learned AO under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 r.w.s 144C of the Act. In response, the assessee filed

Ivl Dhunseri Petrochem Industries Private Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1712/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1712/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-2021) Ivl Dhunseri Petrochem Vs Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Industries Pvt. Ltd. Dhunseri House, 4A Woodburn Park, L.R.Sarani, West Bengal-700020 Pan No. :Aafcd 5214 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ca & Vidhi Ladia, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Pradip Kumar Mondal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26/07/2024, Passed By The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre U/S.143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) R.W.S.144B Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2020-2021 On The Following Grounds :- 1.(A) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Tpo Erred In Making A Downward Adjustment Of Rs.24,72,79,392/- In Respect Of The Transfer Value Of Power By The Captive Power Plant At Haldia, West Bengal. (B) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Methodology Followed By The Assessee To Benchmark The Arm'S Length Value Of The Power Transferred By The Eligible Unit To The Non-Eligible Unit Fulfilled The Internal Cup Parameters & In That View Of The Matter The Transfer Pricing Adjustment Made By The Tpo Was Impermissible On The Given Facts & In Law. (C) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Manner In Which The Drp/Tpo Has Benchmarked

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, CA and VidhiFor Respondent: Pradip Kumar Mondal, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 270ASection 80ISection 92C

amount of claim made by the assessee u/s.80IA of the Act. The DRP also dismissed the objections filed by the assessee against the draft assessment order and the AO accordingly passed the final assessment 3 order. Pertinent to note that the assessee has entered into specified domestic transactions with