← 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

M/S. Bharat Beedi Works Private Limited, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

ITA 644/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri E. Shridhar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

assessee. In order to made the assessments based on the search conducted during the assessment year 2020-21, the assessing officer forwarded the draft assessment orders for approval u/s 153D of the Act to the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Mangaluru on 27/09/2021. It is seen from ... Taxmann.Com 373 Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax V. Subodh Agarwal fresh facts are to be looked The assessee cited case deals Where draft assessment orders for 38 cases which included assessee's case as well were placed before Approving Authority which were approved on same day and _ further final assessment

M/S. Bharat Beedi Works Private Limited, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

ITA 643/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri E. Shridhar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

assessee. In order to made the assessments based on the search conducted during the assessment year 2020-21, the assessing officer forwarded the draft assessment orders for approval u/s 153D of the Act to the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Mangaluru on 27/09/2021. It is seen from ... Taxmann.Com 373 Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax V. Subodh Agarwal fresh facts are to be looked The assessee cited case deals Where draft assessment orders for 38 cases which included assessee's case as well were placed before Approving Authority which were approved on same day and _ further final assessment

M/S Lubrizol India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, DCIT/ACIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee for both AYs are allowed

ITA 6099/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal & (Physical Hearing) M/S. Lubrizol India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Road, Turbhe, Vs Income Tax, Dcit/Acit, Navi Mumbai – 400705. Circle – 3(4), Mumbai. [Pan No. Aaacl 0126 H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Paras Savla Advocate A/W Ms. Rajnandini Shukla, Ca/ Ar Revenue By Ms. Neena Jeph, (Cit Dr) / Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.04.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 254(1)

account of export of chemical additives to its AE. On receipt of report of TPO, the Assessing Officer included the adjustment in draft assessment order. On service of draft assessment order, the assessee exercised its option for filing objection before Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)-1, Mumbai. The DRP confirmed

Lubrizol India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee for both AYs are allowed

ITA 4630/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal & (Physical Hearing) M/S. Lubrizol India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Road, Turbhe, Vs Income Tax, Dcit/Acit, Navi Mumbai – 400705. Circle – 3(4), Mumbai. [Pan No. Aaacl 0126 H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Paras Savla Advocate A/W Ms. Rajnandini Shukla, Ca/ Ar Revenue By Ms. Neena Jeph, (Cit Dr) / Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.04.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 254(1)

account of export of chemical additives to its AE. On receipt of report of TPO, the Assessing Officer included the adjustment in draft assessment order. On service of draft assessment order, the assessee exercised its option for filing objection before Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)-1, Mumbai. The DRP confirmed

Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)_4(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we hold that the treatment of IT services is not in the nature of FTS and cannot be taxed in India. Ground No.25 to 27 are allowed and Ground No

ITA 3317/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

allocation for GSAP license and Go-Live M/s Shell International Petroleum Co. Ltd. application as royalty. The assessee raised further objections against the draft assessment order of the AO, before the DRP who confirmed the addition made by the AO towards BSS services based on the AAR Ruling

Shell International Petroleum Company Limitedium, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we hold that the treatment of IT services is not in the nature of FTS and cannot be taxed in India. Ground No.25 to 27 are allowed and Ground No

ITA 995/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

allocation for GSAP license and Go-Live M/s Shell International Petroleum Co. Ltd. application as royalty. The assessee raised further objections against the draft assessment order of the AO, before the DRP who confirmed the addition made by the AO towards BSS services based on the AAR Ruling

Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we hold that the treatment of IT services is not in the nature of FTS and cannot be taxed in India. Ground No.25 to 27 are allowed and Ground No

ITA 2307/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

allocation for GSAP license and Go-Live M/s Shell International Petroleum Co. Ltd. application as royalty. The assessee raised further objections against the draft assessment order of the AO, before the DRP who confirmed the addition made by the AO towards BSS services based on the AAR Ruling

ACIT, Circlle-34, Kolkata vs. Subhas Kumar Kedia, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1677/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1677/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata Vs Subhas Kumar Kedia, 41, N.S.Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Afnpk 9669 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Shreya Loyalka, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 05.06.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- I) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order U/S.148A(D) & All Subsequent Proceedings. Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Failed To Acknowledge The Fact That The Assesse Had Not Expressed Any Grievance Against The Validity Of Order U/S 148A(D) By Moving Any Writ Petition Which Should Have Been Done In Case Of Any Grievance After Getting The Sald Order U/S.148A(D). Iii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order When The Ld. Cit(A) Has No Jurisdiction To Deal With The Question Whether The 148A(D) Order Was Passed Validly Or Properly As An Order U/S.148A(D) Is Not An Appealable Order Before Ld. Cit(A) As Per Section 246A.

For Appellant: Ms. Shreya Loyalka, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 246ASection 3Section 69A

faxmann.com 225 (Bombay). 6.2.4 The appellant has also challenged the assessment order on the ground that before passing the assessment order a draft assessment order was required to be passed by the AD who passed the order after issuing a show cause notice. The appellant has relied on the judgment ... issues raised by the appellant concerning the non-issuance of notice u/s 148 by the NAFAC and the non-passing of the draft assessment order by the AO are not being commented upon. 6.3 Although the assessment order of the AO has been quashed as discussed above the appeal

Tupperware India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 462/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(3)Section 92CSection 92F

material available on record. The assessee had made provision for warranty expenses and claimed the same as deduction. The ld AO in the draft assessment order considered it as a unascertained liability and disallowed the same. The ld DRP observed that the said provision is contingent in nature and hence

Tupperware India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2409/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(3)Section 92CSection 92F

material available on record. The assessee had made provision for warranty expenses and claimed the same as deduction. The ld AO in the draft assessment order considered it as a unascertained liability and disallowed the same. The ld DRP observed that the said provision is contingent in nature and hence

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle 1, Nungambakkam Chennai vs. Sify Technologies Limited, Taramani Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2889/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1458, 1950 & 2889/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Limited, Income Tax/Acit, Ii Floor, Tidel Park No. 4, Ttt1 Large Taxpayer Unit Circle 1, Taramani S.O., Taramani, Chennai. Chennai 600 113. [Pan:Aaacs9032R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 19.02.2024, 07.08.2023 & 08.08.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate

section 40(a)(i) of the Act are liable to be invoked. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer show-caused the assessee along with draft assessment order proposing disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the 7 I.T.A. Nos.1458, 1950 & 2889/Chny/24 Act. Against the show-cause and DAO, the assessee filed detailed ... 2889/Chny/24 contains ‘system software’, which are intangible assets, eligible for depreciation @ 25%. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer show-caused the assessee along with draft assessment order (DAO) to explain as to why the excess depreciation claimed as per DAO should not be disallowed. In response to the show-cause notice

Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Ltu 1 Chennai, Nungambakkam vs. Sify Technologies Limited, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1950/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1458, 1950 & 2889/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Limited, Income Tax/Acit, Ii Floor, Tidel Park No. 4, Ttt1 Large Taxpayer Unit Circle 1, Taramani S.O., Taramani, Chennai. Chennai 600 113. [Pan:Aaacs9032R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 19.02.2024, 07.08.2023 & 08.08.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate

section 40(a)(i) of the Act are liable to be invoked. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer show-caused the assessee along with draft assessment order proposing disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the 7 I.T.A. Nos.1458, 1950 & 2889/Chny/24 Act. Against the show-cause and DAO, the assessee filed detailed ... 2889/Chny/24 contains ‘system software’, which are intangible assets, eligible for depreciation @ 25%. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer show-caused the assessee along with draft assessment order (DAO) to explain as to why the excess depreciation claimed as per DAO should not be disallowed. In response to the show-cause notice

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Sify Technologies Limited, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1458/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1458, 1950 & 2889/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Limited, Income Tax/Acit, Ii Floor, Tidel Park No. 4, Ttt1 Large Taxpayer Unit Circle 1, Taramani S.O., Taramani, Chennai. Chennai 600 113. [Pan:Aaacs9032R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 19.02.2024, 07.08.2023 & 08.08.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate

section 40(a)(i) of the Act are liable to be invoked. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer show-caused the assessee along with draft assessment order proposing disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the 7 I.T.A. Nos.1458, 1950 & 2889/Chny/24 Act. Against the show-cause and DAO, the assessee filed detailed ... 2889/Chny/24 contains ‘system software’, which are intangible assets, eligible for depreciation @ 25%. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer show-caused the assessee along with draft assessment order (DAO) to explain as to why the excess depreciation claimed as per DAO should not be disallowed. In response to the show-cause notice

Harbhagwan Harbhajan Lal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Cl. 1(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 796/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Apr 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Jaspal Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144rSection 145Section 270ASection 271BSection 44A

Ld.CIT(Appeals)NFAC, has erred in having confirmed the assessment order which was passed by the Ld.AO even without having served upon any draft assessment order on the assessee as required under the law. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (I) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 32/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

account of provision of SDS and Rs.30,82,056/- on account of interest on receivables. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed the draft assessment order on 26.12.2016. 4. Aggrieved with the draft assessment order passed by the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred objection before the Ld. DRP. In pursuance

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2130/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

account of provision of SDS and Rs.30,82,056/- on account of interest on receivables. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed the draft assessment order on 26.12.2016. 4. Aggrieved with the draft assessment order passed by the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred objection before the Ld. DRP. In pursuance

Adp Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 194/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Adp Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle-1(1), Pan: Aanca8983A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ca Kc Devdas, Ca Kranthi Palivela & Ca Mrudulatha Revenue By: M. Narmada, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/04/2025

For Appellant: CA KC Devdas, CA Kranthi PalivelaFor Respondent: M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

vide order dated 28/01/2022 suggested the TP adjustments to Rs. 27,11,05,479/-. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed the draft assessment order on 24/03/2022 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 171,32,40,363/- and book profit of Rs. 148,81,42,554/-. Aggrieved

ACIT(It)-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Munchener Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft Aktiengesellschaft in Munchen, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5094/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala / Jeet Kamdar
Section 37Section 40Section 44CSection 9(1)(vii)

unexpired risks and premium deficiency while computing the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act as under:- a) The ld. AO passed a draft assessment order making an adjustment of Rs. 14,13,00,000/- on account of provision for unexpired risk and premium deficiency reserve ... year under consideration for the purpose of calculating book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. b) The ld. AO in his draft assessment order relied on clause (b) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) of the Act which provides that the amount carried to any reserves, by whatever name

ACIT(It)-3(2)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Munchener Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft Aktiengesellschaft in Munchen, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5093/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala / Jeet Kamdar
Section 37Section 40Section 44CSection 9(1)(vii)

unexpired risks and premium deficiency while computing the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act as under:- a) The ld. AO passed a draft assessment order making an adjustment of Rs. 14,13,00,000/- on account of provision for unexpired risk and premium deficiency reserve ... year under consideration for the purpose of calculating book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. b) The ld. AO in his draft assessment order relied on clause (b) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) of the Act which provides that the amount carried to any reserves, by whatever name

Munchener Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft Aktiengesellschaft in Munchen, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It)-3(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4833/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala / Jeet Kamdar
Section 37Section 40Section 44CSection 9(1)(vii)

unexpired risks and premium deficiency while computing the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act as under:- a) The ld. AO passed a draft assessment order making an adjustment of Rs. 14,13,00,000/- on account of provision for unexpired risk and premium deficiency reserve ... year under consideration for the purpose of calculating book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. b) The ld. AO in his draft assessment order relied on clause (b) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) of the Act which provides that the amount carried to any reserves, by whatever name