← 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

L'Oreal India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Mumbai

ITA 4577/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarl'Oreal India Private V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, A-Wing, 8Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai Maharashtra 400 013, बनाम Income Tax- 7(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacl0738K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant By : Shri Niraj Sheth Respondent By : Ms. Neena Jeph (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing 19.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Prabhash Shankar [Α.Μ.] This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer (‘Tpo' For Short) Pursuant To The Direction Of The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp' For Short), Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Relevant To The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2020-21.The Assessee Has Challenged The Grounds Of Transfer Pricing Adjustment On Account Of Advertisement, Marketing & Promotion (Amp) Expenses. Following Are The Grounds Raised By The Assessee: Page 2

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 4Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

Page 1 ITA No. 4577/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2020-21) IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP

Ketan Chandrakant Motta, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 203/AHD/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 274Section 69Section 69A

addition of Rs.17,40,000/- as unexplained money under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the draft Assessment Order, the assessee filed for direction from Ld..DRP which the Ld..DRP refused to entertain, culminating in passing of the final oder

Letiwind Shriram Manufacturing Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 493/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.493/Chny/2017 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

accordingly made downward adjustment on the AE purchase of Rs.2,01,49,026/- taking comparable margins at 4.33%. The A.O issued draft assessment order to the assessee including the TP adjustment suggested by the TPO. The assessee filed objection before DRP rejecting M/s. RRB Energy Ltd. as a comparable company

Alok Vijawat, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Udaipur

ITA 605/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

show cause notice was raised, specifically on the aspect of applicability of or otherwise of section 115BBE vide its show cause notice come draft assessment order dated 24.09.2021 bearing DIN: ITBA/AST/F/143(3) (SCN)/2021-22/1035876830(1), in the following words: 10 SHRI ALOK VIJAWAT VS PCIT,UDAIPUR “2. In your ... dated 27.09.2021 is reproduced hereunder in verbatim: “A. Proposed taxing at higher rate u/s 115BBE: Through the above captioned show cause notice and draft assessment order, the assessee has been asked as to why the tax be not computed as per the provisions of S. 115BBE

Yogesh Ginning Mill, Prop. Yogesh Chand Gupta, Govindgarh vs. ACIT, Circle I, Alwar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 540/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Paridhi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

order. 14. That the assessment order dated 27.12.2019 was passed without proposing the addition to be made in any show cause notice and draft assessment order as per the procedures laid down in the act. 15. That the assessment order dated 27.12.2019 was passed ignoring the audited financial statements ... That the order dated 27.12.2019 was passed by learned AO is without issue of Show cause notice and Draft assessment order, and the appellant has duly submitted the legal provisions and judgements in support of his grounds. So the contention of the learned appellate authority in this regard is incorrect

Yogesh Ginning Mill, Prop. Yogesh Chand Gupta, Govindgarh vs. ACIT, Alwar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1045/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Paridhi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

order. 14. That the assessment order dated 27.12.2019 was passed without proposing the addition to be made in any show cause notice and draft assessment order as per the procedures laid down in the act. 15. That the assessment order dated 27.12.2019 was passed ignoring the audited financial statements ... That the order dated 27.12.2019 was passed by learned AO is without issue of Show cause notice and Draft assessment order, and the appellant has duly submitted the legal provisions and judgements in support of his grounds. So the contention of the learned appellate authority in this regard is incorrect

Gaurika Multitrade Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1977/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(23)Section 263

call on us or ask for the same. 3. The ld. AO thereafter issued a final show-cause notice u/s.144 which was a draft assessment order proposing the addition of Rs. 2,22,94,944/-. The details of show-cause notice u/s.144 and the draft assessment order have been placed ... filed all the replies alongwith the details which has been mentioned above. Further, ld. AO had issued a draft assessment order proposing the addition in his final show-cause notice u/s.144 dated 25/03/2022 and again assessee on 26/03/2022 has filed voluminous documents before the ld. AO including the tax invoices

Sunitha, Coimbatore vs. PCIT -1, Coim, Batore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2013/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Bhqps 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, IRS, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 69

book whereby a show cause notice dated 16.04.2021 was issued to the assessee as to why assessment should not be completed as per draft Assessment Order. The show cause notice dated 16.04.2021 is reproduced as under: Show cause notice as to why assessment should not be completed as per Draft ... assist you in ending one uncertainty, which is pending e-Assessment in your case for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. A draft assessment order proposing to modify your returned income and/or sum payable is reproduced as under:- The assessee has e-filed its Return of Income in Form

Goldman Sachs (India) Securiteis Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Add/Jt/Dy/Asst/CIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

ITA 763/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)Section 92C

decision of the special bench of the Tribunal in Biocon Ltd. v/s DCIT (ITA No. 248/Bang/2010). 6. The Assessing Officer (“AO") vide draft assessment order dated 27/04/2021 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) of the Act disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that ... being upheld by us: 5.2 Discussion & Direction of the DRP: The AO had discussed the issue in para 5.1 to 5.5 of the draft assessment order. He has noticed from note 2(vii) of Schedule 14 to final accounts that employee costs include the cost of restrictive stock unit

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1792/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

have been in toto approved by the Range Head and therefore there is no need for the Range Head to say that the draft assessment order submitted by the AO requires modification and the approval would only say that such order submitted had been approved. Though the approval had been ... basis of available records and after going through the merits of the case and submissions made by the assessee during assessment proceedings, prepared draft assessment order and put up the same to the Addl. CIT of the concerned range for approval. The Addl. CIT, after duly and independently applying mind

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1791/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

have been in toto approved by the Range Head and therefore there is no need for the Range Head to say that the draft assessment order submitted by the AO requires modification and the approval would only say that such order submitted had been approved. Though the approval had been ... basis of available records and after going through the merits of the case and submissions made by the assessee during assessment proceedings, prepared draft assessment order and put up the same to the Addl. CIT of the concerned range for approval. The Addl. CIT, after duly and independently applying mind

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1790/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

have been in toto approved by the Range Head and therefore there is no need for the Range Head to say that the draft assessment order submitted by the AO requires modification and the approval would only say that such order submitted had been approved. Though the approval had been ... basis of available records and after going through the merits of the case and submissions made by the assessee during assessment proceedings, prepared draft assessment order and put up the same to the Addl. CIT of the concerned range for approval. The Addl. CIT, after duly and independently applying mind

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1789/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

have been in toto approved by the Range Head and therefore there is no need for the Range Head to say that the draft assessment order submitted by the AO requires modification and the approval would only say that such order submitted had been approved. Though the approval had been ... basis of available records and after going through the merits of the case and submissions made by the assessee during assessment proceedings, prepared draft assessment order and put up the same to the Addl. CIT of the concerned range for approval. The Addl. CIT, after duly and independently applying mind

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1788/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

have been in toto approved by the Range Head and therefore there is no need for the Range Head to say that the draft assessment order submitted by the AO requires modification and the approval would only say that such order submitted had been approved. Though the approval had been ... basis of available records and after going through the merits of the case and submissions made by the assessee during assessment proceedings, prepared draft assessment order and put up the same to the Addl. CIT of the concerned range for approval. The Addl. CIT, after duly and independently applying mind

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1787/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

have been in toto approved by the Range Head and therefore there is no need for the Range Head to say that the draft assessment order submitted by the AO requires modification and the approval would only say that such order submitted had been approved. Though the approval had been ... basis of available records and after going through the merits of the case and submissions made by the assessee during assessment proceedings, prepared draft assessment order and put up the same to the Addl. CIT of the concerned range for approval. The Addl. CIT, after duly and independently applying mind

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1786/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

have been in toto approved by the Range Head and therefore there is no need for the Range Head to say that the draft assessment order submitted by the AO requires modification and the approval would only say that such order submitted had been approved. Though the approval had been ... basis of available records and after going through the merits of the case and submissions made by the assessee during assessment proceedings, prepared draft assessment order and put up the same to the Addl. CIT of the concerned range for approval. The Addl. CIT, after duly and independently applying mind

K.G. Denim Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Tp-2(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1718/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1718/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 K G Denim Limited, Dcit, 1, Thenthirumalai, V. Tp-2(1), Jadayampalayam B.O., Chennai. Dhoddabavi, Coimbatore – 641 302. [Pan: Aaack-7940-C] (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Arjun Raj, Advocate : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 263Section 263(1)(c)Section 801A

assessee, vide order dated 19.01.2023 proposed adjustment of Rs.12,47,350/- in respect of sale of steam. Subsequently, the AO passed a draft assessment order u/s.144C(1) of the Act on 29.08.2023. Since, the assessee did not file any objection / reply, the AO passed an order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C

Concur Technologies (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner F Income Tax Circle 2(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1925/BANG/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92B

assessment order passed by the Assessment Unit (ld.AO) pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore [ld. DRP] dated 24.6.2024 in draft assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) raising the following grounds of appeal

Mrs. Sabena Prakash, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1480/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 270ASection 274Section 44A

served on the assessee asking to explain as to why the income of the assessee should not be modified according to the draft assessment order reproduced in the show cause notice. On the same day the assessee submitted the details called for and after considering the submissions, the contention

Asstt. Commissiner of Income Tax-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Alok Infrastructure P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5254/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2018-19 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Alok Infrastructure Income Tax-6(1)(1), Private Limited, 5Th Floor, Vs. 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower-B, M.K. Road, Peninsula Business Park, Mumbai. G.K. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai. Pan : Aagca1949P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nimesh Vora & Ms. Moksha Mehta For Revenue : Shri Akshay Tapdiya, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-11-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-12-2024 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M : The Revenue Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 09-08-2024 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-Nfac, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. The Revenue Is Challenging The Relief Granted By The Ld.Cit(A) In Respect Of Following Additions Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao):- (A) Addition Made U/S 14A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟); (B) Disallowance Of Expenses Related To The Assets Sold; (C) Disallowance Of Claim Of Write Off Of Cement Bags.

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora &For Respondent: Shri Akshay Tapdiya, Sr.DR
Section 14A

during the assessment proceedings was field mistakenly without verification of details. Subsequently, when the AO proposed disallowance of Rs. 97,80,024/- in draft assessment order dated 20/04/2021 stating that the expense of Repairs and maintenance belong to fixed assets and investment sold by the appellant during assessment year under