← 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

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bennett Coleman & Company Limited, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 1520/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्य्थी / (Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1520/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-1(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Assessee By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala A/W. Shri Madhur Agrawal, Shri Jas Sanghavi, Shri Yash Prakash & Shri Vikas Poojary Revenue By : Shri S. Srinivasu Cit Dr A/W. Shri Ashok Ambastha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024 2 आदेश/Order आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 & 1520/Mum/2023 Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. Per Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w. Shri MadhurFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu CIT DR a/w. Shri Ashok
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 153

Clause xiv, the assessment unit shall, after taking into account all the relevant material available on the record make in writing, a draft assessment order and then as per Clause xvi, the National e-Assessment Centre shall examine the draft assessment order and finalise the assessment within the period

Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre., Delhi

ITA 1387/MUM/2023[2018--2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्य्थी / (Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1520/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-1(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Assessee By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala A/W. Shri Madhur Agrawal, Shri Jas Sanghavi, Shri Yash Prakash & Shri Vikas Poojary Revenue By : Shri S. Srinivasu Cit Dr A/W. Shri Ashok Ambastha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024 2 आदेश/Order आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 & 1520/Mum/2023 Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. Per Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w. Shri MadhurFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu CIT DR a/w. Shri Ashok
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 153

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE

Sri Varalaxmi Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 486/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G, Accountnat Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.486/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2015-16) M/S. Sri Varalaxmi Projects Private Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-3(1), Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaics9161K (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Venkateswarlu, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 23/09/2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkateswarlu, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 263

observed that in this case before passing of final assessment order, the National Faceless Appeal Centre unit has also passed a draft assessment order on 26.03.2022. Perusal of this draft assessment order, copy of which is placed in paper book at pages 126 to 130, would show that an addition ... hands of the assessee u/s. 69A of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee vide its letter dated 26.03.2022 filed its objections to the draft assessment order inter alia contended that provisions of section 69A of the Act cannot be applied to those entries which are recorded in the books of account

Chundi Sukumar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ITO(International Taxation)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.132/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Chundi Sukumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Reddy (International Taxation)-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bnqpc2445F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, DR
Section 139(1)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)

hearing: 18/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/09/2024 आदेश/ORDER Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the draft assessment order dated 31/01/2024 passed by the Income Tax Officer (International Taxation)-1 Hyderabad, relating to A.Y.2015-16. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that ... addition of Rs.34,21,060/- towards Long-Term Capital Gain derived from sale of property. 3. The assessee has filed objection against the draft assessment order before the DRP-1 Bengaluru and challenged the draft assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on 01/03/2023 in light of notice

DCIT, Intl. Taxn., Circel1(2), Bangalore vs. Blue Yonder Inc., U.S.A

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1326/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedit(It)A Nos.1302, 1326/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Blue Yonder Inc., International Taxation, 15059 N, Suite 400 Scottsdale, Circle -1(2), Arizona, Foreign, Bengaluru. United States. Pan : Aaccj 3581 C Appellant Respondent C.O.No.34/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A No.1302/Bang/2024) Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/S. Blue Yonder Inc., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, United States. Circle -1(2), Pan : Aaccj 3581 C Bengaluru. Cross Objector Respondent Appellant By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate & Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. R. Ilavarasi, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against Two Orders Of Cit(A) Both Dated 09.05.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-13 & 2018-19. It(It)A Nos.1302, 1326/Bang/2024 C.O. No.34/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A No.1302/Bang/2024) Page 2 Of 13

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate and Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Ilavarasi, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250

same issue in IT(IT)A No.2696/Bang/2017 dated 12.8.2021 wherein held as under: “3. Brief facts of the case are as follow: The draft assessment order was passed on 31.12.2016, wherein it was concluded that the amount received by the assessee-company for sale of software would constitute royalty within

DCIT, Intl Taxn, Circle-1(2), Bng, Bengaluru vs. Blue Yonder Inc., U.S.A

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1302/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedit(It)A Nos.1302, 1326/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Blue Yonder Inc., International Taxation, 15059 N, Suite 400 Scottsdale, Circle -1(2), Arizona, Foreign, Bengaluru. United States. Pan : Aaccj 3581 C Appellant Respondent C.O.No.34/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A No.1302/Bang/2024) Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/S. Blue Yonder Inc., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, United States. Circle -1(2), Pan : Aaccj 3581 C Bengaluru. Cross Objector Respondent Appellant By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate & Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. R. Ilavarasi, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against Two Orders Of Cit(A) Both Dated 09.05.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-13 & 2018-19. It(It)A Nos.1302, 1326/Bang/2024 C.O. No.34/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A No.1302/Bang/2024) Page 2 Of 13

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate and Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Ilavarasi, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250

same issue in IT(IT)A No.2696/Bang/2017 dated 12.8.2021 wherein held as under: “3. Brief facts of the case are as follow: The draft assessment order was passed on 31.12.2016, wherein it was concluded that the amount received by the assessee-company for sale of software would constitute royalty within

Sukumar Dhanapal, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-9(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1724/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1724/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sukumar Dhanapal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 121/47, Singanna Chetty Street, Non-Corporate Ward 9(1), Chintadripet, Chennai 600 002. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Atnpd5850F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. M. Lavanya, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. We Find That This Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 59 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition In The Form Of Notarized 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 2

For Appellant: Ms. M. Lavanya, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 68

account and also paid credit bills amounting to ₹.5,47,81,210/-. On perusal of the assessment order, we note that against the draft assessment order proposing to treat the above amount as unexplained money under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], the assessee