← 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. Manoj Goyal, Agra vs. Dy CIT, CC, Agra

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 186/AGR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.185/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.186/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.187/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.188/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Manoj Goyal बनाम/ Dcit Central Circle 22, Nehru Nagar, Agra – 282002 Agra Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No. Abcpg-3816-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anurga Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain (Cit) – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

For Appellant: Shri Anurga Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain (CIT) – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 144BSection 153ASection 153BSection 153DSection 271A

perused the order of the Tribunal, in view of the undisputed facts before us about the manner in which the approval to the draft assessment order was granted under section 153D for the assessment proceedings, by a letter dated 31-12-2017 in 38 cases placed before the approving authority ... Others (supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with regard to the requirement of prior approval of superior authority on the draft assessment order under section 153D, before passing the assessment order by the Assessing Officer. It was noted that the word 'approval' though has not been defined

Sh. Manoj Goyal, Agra vs. Dy CIT, CC, Agra

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 185/AGR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.185/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.186/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.187/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.188/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Manoj Goyal बनाम/ Dcit Central Circle 22, Nehru Nagar, Agra – 282002 Agra Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No. Abcpg-3816-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anurga Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain (Cit) – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

For Appellant: Shri Anurga Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain (CIT) – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 144BSection 153ASection 153BSection 153DSection 271A

perused the order of the Tribunal, in view of the undisputed facts before us about the manner in which the approval to the draft assessment order was granted under section 153D for the assessment proceedings, by a letter dated 31-12-2017 in 38 cases placed before the approving authority ... Others (supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with regard to the requirement of prior approval of superior authority on the draft assessment order under section 153D, before passing the assessment order by the Assessing Officer. It was noted that the word 'approval' though has not been defined

Inditrade Business Consultants Limited, Ernakulam vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 655/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanthan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 69C

made by the assessee. Accordingly, the assessee was issued a show cause notice along with a draft assessment order requesting to furnish the details of PAN, along with proof of delivery of goods in respect of these purchases. In response, the assessee provided only the PAN and invoice copy

Kgk Creations Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No. 9 to 13 are allowed

ITA 6854/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalkgk Creations Private Limited Jurisdiction Assessing Officer Gj-10, Seepz Sez, Seepz S.O. Vs. (Jao) Mumbai 400096, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai Aayakar Pan No. Aabck0378H Bhawan, Mumbai Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee Represented By Shri Vijay Mehta Ca / Ar Department Represented By Shri Kiran Unavekar Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 17/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/03/2025

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 254(1)

Assessing Officer on the basis of report/order of Transfer Pricing Officer 5 KGK Creation Private Ltd (AY-2021-22) (TPO) made addition in draft Assessment Order passed on 18/12/2023. The draft assessment order was served on the assessee. The assessee exercised its option to filed objection before Dispute Resolution Panel

Cornerstone Ondemand Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT(It)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5677/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AR
Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

attributed 80% of the total receipts from CSOD India as taxable in the hands of the assessee. The assessee being aggrieved by the draft assessment order filed its objections before the DRP. The DRP issued directions upholding that CSOD India is the DAPE of the assessee but reduced the attribution

Connerstone Ondemand Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )-2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3753/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AR
Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

attributed 80% of the total receipts from CSOD India as taxable in the hands of the assessee. The assessee being aggrieved by the draft assessment order filed its objections before the DRP. The DRP issued directions upholding that CSOD India is the DAPE of the assessee but reduced the attribution

Cornerstone Ondemand Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )-2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3752/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AR
Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

attributed 80% of the total receipts from CSOD India as taxable in the hands of the assessee. The assessee being aggrieved by the draft assessment order filed its objections before the DRP. The DRP issued directions upholding that CSOD India is the DAPE of the assessee but reduced the attribution

Cornerstone Ondemand Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )-2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3751/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AR
Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

attributed 80% of the total receipts from CSOD India as taxable in the hands of the assessee. The assessee being aggrieved by the draft assessment order filed its objections before the DRP. The DRP issued directions upholding that CSOD India is the DAPE of the assessee but reduced the attribution

Cornerstone Ondemand Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )-291)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3747/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AR
Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

attributed 80% of the total receipts from CSOD India as taxable in the hands of the assessee. The assessee being aggrieved by the draft assessment order filed its objections before the DRP. The DRP issued directions upholding that CSOD India is the DAPE of the assessee but reduced the attribution

Kishan Kumar Bajaj, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-32, New Delhi

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

ITA 2602/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

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

Purpletalk India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 193/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA PVSS PrasadFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234ASection 37(1)Section 92C

terms of order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, dated 29.10.2019, the Assessing Officer has passed Draft Assessment Order u/sec.144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 12.11.2019 and determined the total income at Rs.8,59,64,140/- by making addition ITA.No.193/Hyd./2021 towards ... addition towards interest paid on TDS default for Rs.3,488/-. 7. The assessee-company filed it’s objections before the DRP against the Draft Assessment Order dated 12.11.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and challenged the TP adjustments as proposed

JCIT (OSD), Circle- 21(1), New Delhi vs. Rajasthan Prime Steel Processing Center Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3538/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 3537/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) The Wine Connection Vs The Assistant Commissioner Shop No. 22 & 23, Dlf Cyber Of Income Tax, Hub, Gurugram, Haryana- Central Circle-14, 122001 New Delhi Pan: Aaift6798A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Yudhister Mehtani, Ca Revenue By Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2025 Order

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153D

Appeal and prayed for quashing the assessment order. The Wine Connection Vs. ACIT 4. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the draft assessment orders have been perused by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax while according approval u/s 153D of the Act, which was made available ... 20/05/2024 at 21:34:51 requires the approving authority, i.e. Joint Commissioner to verify the issues raised by the Assessing Officer in the draft assessment order and apply his mind to ascertain as to whether the required procedure has been followed by the Assessing Officer or not in framing

Centrient Pharmaceuticals India Private Limited, Punjab vs. DCIT/ ACIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 1201/CHANDI/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1201/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Sh. Darpan Kirpalani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Shrma, CIT, D.R. (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(10)Section 153(1)Section 253(1)(d)

Assessed total Income u/s 313,97,95,135 143(3) r.w.s 144C 6.1 The above quantified income was sent to the assessee as Draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) of the IT Act, 1961 vide DIN & order No ITBA/AST/F/144C/2023-24/1059061224(1) dated 26/12/23. 6.2 The assessee filed its objections before

Visteon Corporation, Michigan vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2962/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2962 /Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2015-16 Visteon Corporation Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Grace Lake Corporation Centre, International Taxation, Van Buren Township, Circle-2(2), Michigan-48111 Chennai. [Pan: Aadcv5660K] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Mr.Aditya Vohra, Advocate (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Mr.AdityaFor Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 263

aside the revisionary order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 of the Act dated 06.01.2023 and hence the subject draft assessment order passed has become infructuous. However, it is pertinent to refer to the subject para of the Hon’ble Tribunals’s order wherein ITA No.260/Chny/2023 relating ... view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the order u/s 263 is not quashed as such and hence the draft assessment order is not infructuous as claimed by the assessee…..” 7.0 The observations of the DRP hereinabove clearly allude that it is not subscribing

M/S. Sp Imperial Star Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 3(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5862/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI. AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92Section 948Section 94B

towards the excess interest paid over and above the Arm’s length interest rate by using CUP method. The ld. AO/TPO passed the draft assessment order, dated 01.11.2023, u/s. 144C(1) of the Act, against which the assessee filed its objection before the Hon’ble DRP, which disposed

Jsw Energy Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed partly for statistical

ITA 3714/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR/
Section 115JSection 14ASection 37Section 80I

international transactions to the ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). On receipt of order dated 20/07/2023 of ld TPO, the Assessing Officer issued a draft assessment order to the assessee on 31.08.2023 incorporating the adjustments made by the Ld. TPO. Against the draft assessment order, the assessee preferred objections before ... length price determination. The adjustment made by the Ld. TPO was included by the Assessing Officer in the draft assessment order. The Ld. DRP upheld the said transfer pricing adjustment. Further, the Assessing Officer also made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act amounting to Rs.9,80,000/- in regular income

Jsw Energy (Barmer) Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed partly for statistical

ITA 3713/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR/For Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Kabra
Section 14A

Officer (TPO). On receipt of order dated 20/07/2023 dated 20/07/2023 of ld TPO, the Assessing Officer issued a , the Assessing Officer issued a draft assessment order draft assessment order to the assessee on 31.08.2023 incorporating to the assessee on 31.08.2023 incorporating the adjustments made by the Ld. TPO. Against ... draft assessment the adjustments made by the Ld. TPO. Against the draft assessment the adjustments made by the Ld. TPO. Against the draft assessment order, the assessee preferred objection , the assessee preferred objections before the Ld. DRP before the Ld. DRP, which were disposed off on 30.05.2024. Pursuant

Liquidhub Analytics Pvt. Ltd. (Now Merged With Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd), Pune vs. NFAC, Pune

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

ITA 1952/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Smt Nilu Jaggi, CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) who proposed an upward adjustment of Rs.3,07,80,000/-. The Assessing Officer, in the draft assessment order, apart from making the above addition, also made addition of Rs.24,70,183/- on account of health and education cess. Since the income returned ... Technology Services India Limited w.e.f. 1st April, 2020, duly approved by National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') order dated 24 June 2021. Accordingly, the draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) issued by Assessment unit, Income Tax Department is invalid and thereby we request your goodself that impugned draft assessment order

Yugendiran Vishnupriya, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Chennai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3242/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3241 &3242/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-18) Yugendiran Vishnupriya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Door No.284/3, International Tax, Thiruveni Colony, Bellyarea, Ward 2(2) Anna Nagar, Chennai-600040 Chennai. [Pan: Apzpv 9903M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 5(2)Section 9

Grounds of appeal for assessment year 2016-2017 ‘’1. The order of the Dispute Resolution Panel against the draft assessment order by the Id. AO is contrary to law and facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Hon'ble DRP erred in passing the order without considering the information ... above grounds of appeal. Grounds of appeal for assessment year 2017-2018 ‘’1. The order of the Dispute Resolution Panel against the draft assessment order by the Id. AO is contrary to law and facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Hon'ble DRP erred in passing the order

Yugendiran Vishnupriya, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Chennai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3241/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3241 &3242/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-18) Yugendiran Vishnupriya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Door No.284/3, International Tax, Thiruveni Colony, Bellyarea, Ward 2(2) Anna Nagar, Chennai-600040 Chennai. [Pan: Apzpv 9903M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 5(2)Section 9

Grounds of appeal for assessment year 2016-2017 ‘’1. The order of the Dispute Resolution Panel against the draft assessment order by the Id. AO is contrary to law and facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Hon'ble DRP erred in passing the order without considering the information ... above grounds of appeal. Grounds of appeal for assessment year 2017-2018 ‘’1. The order of the Dispute Resolution Panel against the draft assessment order by the Id. AO is contrary to law and facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Hon'ble DRP erred in passing the order