← 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

DCIT Central Circle-2, Delhi vs. Mg Metalloy Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1433/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: the ld. CIT (A) and before ld. CIT (A), assessee has raised several jurisdictional issues on the issue of scope of jurisdiction of section 153A and also raised the issue of provisions of section 153D of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee, ld. CIT (A) dismissed the jurisdictional issue and partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.7. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

DCIT/cc/Noida/S&S/1530/20 16-17/2623 Dated : 30.12.2016 To, The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Aayakar Bhawan,Bhainsali Ground, Meerut. Sir, Sub: Draft assessment orders u/s 153A1153C/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in Apple Group (D.O.S 11111/2014)- Approval u/s 153D of the I.T. Act, 1961- regarding. Please find ... Iron Enterprises AAHCA8642G 2010-11 to 2013-14 Pvt. Ltd. 18 M/s. Mastermind Trade-in- AAECM9435E 2009-10 to 2015-16 Private Ltd Draft assessment order received Late i.e. on 31/12/2016 Yours sincerely Beyond the time as per internal Action Plan. --sd-- And thus having a very little time/ almost

Akash, Noida vs. Income Tax Officer (It), Ward-1, Pune

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

ITA 1535/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(vii)

elaborate reply. However, the AO made addition of Rs.24,36,000/- u/sec.56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The AO passed a draft assessment order u/sec.144C of the Act dated 2 Akash, Noida[A] 15.03.2024. Accordingly, as per the provisions of section 144C of the Act, assessee had an option ... file objections before Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP) within 30 days of receipt of the draft assessment order. It is mentioned in the final assessment order that assessee vide letter dated 19.04.2024 replied to the AO that assessee had filed appeal before the DRP and submitted copy of appeal having

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai, Nungambakkam vs. Avilaa Exports Private Limited, Mannady, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 770/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.770/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Asst. Commissioner Of Avilaa Exports Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. Old No.269, New No.126, 4Th Floor, Thambu Chetty Street, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai. Mannady, Chennai-600001. [Pan: Aajca 2473K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Akshit Jain, C.A Fgथ" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Nfac], Delhi [Hereinafter “Cit(A)] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1060339451(1), Dated 31.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2017-18 U/S. 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 15.01.2022. :- 2 -: 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Akshit Jain, C.A FGFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

passed an order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 29.03.2022 holding as under: “18. A show cause notice along with Draft Assessment order was issued to assessee on 26.3.2022. The assessee was requested to furnish its reply on or before 28.3.2022. The assessee has submitted its reply

Athisaya Pani Pravin George, Kavalkinaru Rathapuram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Int Taxn Ward, Income Tax Office

In the result the appeal of the department is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 323/CHNY/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.180/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2021-2022

For Appellant: Shri T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 250Section 251Section 271

bank account bearing number TMB 176100100300423. The assesse further didn’t respond to AOs show cause notices or even the draft assessment orders. The default of assesse qua non-compliance to AOs notice is established. 6.0 On the impugned matter we have also noted para 3.5 on page

Income Tax Officer, Tuticorin vs. Athisayapani Pravin George, Kavalkinaru, Tirunelveli

In the result the appeal of the department is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 180/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.180/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2021-2022

For Appellant: Shri T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 250Section 251Section 271

bank account bearing number TMB 176100100300423. The assesse further didn’t respond to AOs show cause notices or even the draft assessment orders. The default of assesse qua non-compliance to AOs notice is established. 6.0 On the impugned matter we have also noted para 3.5 on page

M/S Emerson Automation Solutions Intelligent Platforms Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore vs. DCIT, C-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the Ground Nos

ITA 9/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedm/S Emersion Automation Solutios The Deputy Commissioner Intelligent Platforms Private Limited Of Income Tax, Circle- (Formerly M/S Ge Intelligent 3(1)(2), Bmtc Building, Platforms Private Limited), Velankani Vs. Koramangala, Bangalore Tech Park, Building 9, First Floor, 43 Hosur Road, Bangalore-560100 Pan – Aaacg7573K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. Sachit Jolly & Sri. Rishabh Malhotra, Advocates Revenue By: Sri. Subramanian. S, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.08.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav,J.M. Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising From The Order Of Ld. Ao / Drp Dated 30Th October, 2018. The Assessee Has Raised 19 Grounds Of Appeal Out Of Which Ground Nos. 1 To 5 Are General In Nature & Hence Not Required Specific Adjudication. Ground No. 6 Related To The Grievance Of The Assessee With Respect To The Adjustment Of Custom Duty, Base Cost, Working Capital Not Granted By The Ao While Completing The Assessment. Ground No. 7 Is With Respect To The Applicability Of Tnmm Method Instead Of Rpm Method Applied By The Assessee For Its Trading Segment Transactions. Ground Nos. 8, 9 & 10 Are Related To The Rejection Of Comparability Analysis Conducted By The Tpo As Affirmed By The Drp & Followed By Ao. Ground No. 11 Is With Respect To The Adjustment Of Working Capital Denied By Tpo Affirmed By Drp & Followed By Ao. Ground No. 12 Is With Respect To The Disallowance Of Foreign Exchange Fluctuation & Ground Nos. 13 & 14 Is With Respect To The Payments Made To Headquarters In Lieu Of Services Obtained By Applying

For Appellant: Sri. Sachit Jolly & Sri. RishabhFor Respondent: Sri. Subramanian. S, JCIT
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 271(1)(b)Section 5

required to be made u/s 92CA of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3 M/s Emerson Automation Solutions Intelligent Platforms P. Ltd. 5. The draft assessment order dated u/s 143 (3) r.ws. 92CA dated 18.12.2017 was forwarded to assessee company. The assesse filed petition before DRP against the Draft Assessment order

Charnesh Kapoor, United Kingdom vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2085/DEL/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Charnesh Kapoor, Vs Acit, 12, Jay Mews London United Circle-2(1)(2), Kingdom Sw72, International Taxation, United Kingdom, 72. New Delhi. Pan: Apkpk5291E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saurav Rohtagi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Rohtagi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151

market value of properties. Thus, the due date of completion of assessment by 31.03.2022 stood extended till 30.09.2022 and the AO had passed draft assessment order on 28.09.2022. 4. Thus, on these facts, the Bench was of the considered view that there is no question of irregular exercise of jurisdiction

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1166/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

expenses. 11. Based on the above proposition of TPO, the Assessing Officer proceeded to make the above said TP adjustments in the draft assessment order and further, he proceeded to make corporate additions as under :- (a) Depreciation on Dharuhera Unit : During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee ... depreciation of licence fee of Rs.111,82,572/- and disallowance of proportionate expenses of Rs.10,96,31,427/-. 13. Aggrieved with the above draft assessment order, assessee filed objections before the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and ld. DRP after considering the submissions of the assessee deleted the disallowance

Sony India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1026/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

expenses. 11. Based on the above proposition of TPO, the Assessing Officer proceeded to make the above said TP adjustments in the draft assessment order and further, he proceeded to make corporate additions as under :- (a) Depreciation on Dharuhera Unit : During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee ... depreciation of licence fee of Rs.111,82,572/- and disallowance of proportionate expenses of Rs.10,96,31,427/-. 13. Aggrieved with the above draft assessment order, assessee filed objections before the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and ld. DRP after considering the submissions of the assessee deleted the disallowance

DCIT, Circle -1 (1), Tirupati vs. Dasan India Private Limited, Vijaywada

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

ITA 126/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri H Srinivasulu, AdvFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-
Section 143(3)

TNMM”) as MAM, suggested upward adjustment of Rs. 1,09,47,033/- in respect of imported products. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed the draft assessment order dated 01/04/2021. Aggrieved, assessee preferred objection before the Ld. DRP, and pursuant to the directions of the Ld. DRP dated 28/01/2022, Ld. AO finalised

Lloyd'S Register Asia (India Branch Office), Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation)-3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 878/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant-Addl.CIT DR
Section 250

Article 13(2)(ii) of the India- UK DTAA. The ld. A.O. passed the assessment order dated 29.04.2016 pursuant to the draft assessment order dated 29.03.2016 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act, determining the total income at Rs.18,31,93,071/- after making an addition on the ‘management

Zeel Infotech Private Limited, Kandivli, Mumbai Suburban vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2674/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Zeel Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Pcit, Mumbai-5, Mumbai 402, Gundecha Indl. Complex, Vs Akurli Road, Near Big Bazar, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400101. Pan: Aaacz 1721 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suhas Dabade, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

Rules. Thereafter, the ld. PCIT has initiated proceeding u/s 263 of the Act by issuing of notice dated 18.03.2024 that in the draft assessment order, the assessing officer has proposed disallowance u/s 14A at Rs. 11,77,599/-, however, actually the 2 Zeel Infotech Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2018-19 disallowance ... Show Cause Notice vide ITBA/AST/F/143(3)(SCN)/2021-22/1032583880(1)dated 1.4.2021 as to why the assessment should not be Completed as per above Draft Assessment Order which was duly served. In response to the Show Cause Notice dated 21/4/2021, the assessee uploaded his reply on 23.04.2021 as under: 1. That

Kulsum Mohamed Farooq Mojawala, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2428/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Amit Jhaveri, CAFor Respondent: ShriP.D.Chougule, (Addl. CIT)SR DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 246ASection 250

Assessee has failed to respond to the Notice issued dated 30.06.2021. As a Final opportunity of being heard the AO has issued a Draft Assessment Order U/s 144 of the Act dated 24.03.2022. The Assessee has failed to respond to the Notice issued dated 24.03.2022. As the Assessee has failed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(It)-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Lloyds Register of Shipping, Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1777/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant-Addl.CIT DR
Section 250

Article 13(2)(ii) of the India- UK DTAA. The ld. A.O. passed the assessment order dated 29.04.2016 pursuant to the draft assessment order dated 29.03.2016 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act, determining the total income at Rs.18,31,93,071/- after making an addition on the ‘management

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(It)-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Lloyds Register Asia, Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1776/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant-Addl.CIT DR
Section 250

Article 13(2)(ii) of the India- UK DTAA. The ld. A.O. passed the assessment order dated 29.04.2016 pursuant to the draft assessment order dated 29.03.2016 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act, determining the total income at Rs.18,31,93,071/- after making an addition on the ‘management

Lioyd'S Register Asia (India Branch Office), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation -3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1455/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant-Addl.CIT DR
Section 250

Article 13(2)(ii) of the India- UK DTAA. The ld. A.O. passed the assessment order dated 29.04.2016 pursuant to the draft assessment order dated 29.03.2016 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act, determining the total income at Rs.18,31,93,071/- after making an addition on the ‘management

Emerging Markets Equity Index Master Fund, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation)- 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 4588/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant-Addl.CIT DR
Section 250

Article 13(2)(ii) of the India- UK DTAA. The ld. A.O. passed the assessment order dated 29.04.2016 pursuant to the draft assessment order dated 29.03.2016 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act, determining the total income at Rs.18,31,93,071/- after making an addition on the ‘management

Girish Ratanlal Murkya, Jalna vs. Income Tax Department National Faceless Assessment Centre, Jalna

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

ITA 919/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.919/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Girish Ratanlal Murkya, Vs Income Tax Department, Near Market Yard, Main Road, National Faceless Assessment Tal.-Mantha, Dist.-Jalna-431504 Centre Pan : Agrpm1697A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 26/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 17.08.2023 For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld. Cit(A) (Nfac) Erred In Passing Appeal Order Under Sec. 250 Of The Act, Dt. 17-08-2023 Which Order Is Perverse Not Only To The Facts Of The Case & Also The Provisions Of The Act, 1961. Girish Ratanlal Murkya

Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

opertaive Credit Society Ltd. Therefore, the AO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 30.03.2021. Subsequently, on 22.03.2022 the AO has issued draft assessment order and show cause. The AO mentioned in the assessment order that there was no compliance, therefore, the AO passed an ex-parte order ... adding Rs.65,36,125/- u/s 69A of the Act. Thus, it is observed from the assessment order that the draft assessment order and show cause was issued on 22.03.2022. Thus, there was hardly a short time provided to the assessee for rebutting the draft assessment order. It is also observed

Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp, Chennai vs. DCIT (International Tax)-1 (1), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 349/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.349/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Asv Ramana Towers, International Taxation 1(1) 52,Venkatnarayana Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aadcd 3705D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 155(14)

scrutiny and the assessment was completed without any adjustments. Subsequently, re-assessment proceedings were initiated under Section 147 by the AO and draft assessment order was passed dated 20.02.2023 under section 143(3) read with section 147 read with section 144C of the Act, by restricting the TDS credit ... application before the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") under section 144C of the Act. The ld.DRP, vide its directions confirmed the draft assessment order dated 12.12.2023. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before us. 4. At the outset, the ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue of denial

Jaishree Varadaraj, Coimbatore vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 171/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Shri Jaishree Varadaraj, The Ito, 1547-A, Avinashi Road, International Taxation Ward, Peelamedu, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 004. [Pan: Abgpv 5575 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148

offered to tax in their hands; and the assessee filed detailed reply dated 20.03.2023, which was rejected by the AO and he passed draft assessment order to add a sum of Rs.8,26,79,878/- as the consideration received from the sale of ‘3’ apartments [which were allotted