← 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

Hyundai Motor India Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 8(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 609/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 609/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Hyundai Motor India V. Tax, Limited, Non Corporate Circle – 8(1), Plot No. H-1, Sipcot Chennai – 600 034. Industrial Park, Irungatukottai, Sriperumbudurtaluk, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu – 602 117. [Pan: Aaach-2364-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nanda Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nanda Kumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 43BSection 92

order dated 01.11.2019 has suggested upward adjustment for brand development services. 4. The Assessing Officer, in pursuant to TPO order, has passed draft assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s 144C(1) of the Act on 27.12.2019 and made transfer price adjustments as suggested by the TPO at Rs.237 ... assets for regional offices and disallowance of bonus / performance reward u/s.43B of the Act. The assessee has filed objections before learned DRP against draft assessment order, but the learned DRP vide its directions dated 23.03.2021 has rejected objections filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer in pursuant to the directions

Hyundai Motor India Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 8(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 608/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 608/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Hyundai Motor India V. Tax, Limited, Non Corporate Circle – 8(1), Plot No. H-1, Sipcot Chennai – 600 034. Industrial Park, Irungatukottai, Sriperumbudurtaluk, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu – 602 117. [Pan: Aaach-2364-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nanda Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nanda Kumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 250Section 43BSection 92

imports and upward adjustment for brand development services. The Assessing Officer, in pursuant to directions of the ld. 4. TPO, has passed draft assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 30.12.2016 and made transfer pricing adjustments as suggested by the TPO at Rs.179 ... disallowance of bonus / performance reward u/s.43B(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has filed objections before learned DRP against draft assessment order, but the learned DRP vide its directions :-4-: ITA. No:608/Chny/2024 dated 16.09.2017 has rejected objections filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer, in pursuant

Hyundai Motor India Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 8(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 589/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 589/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Hyundai Motor India V. Income Tax, Limited, Non Corporate Circle -8(1), Plot No. H-1, Sipcot Chennai – 600 034. Industrial Park, Irungatukottai, Sriperumbudurtaluk, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu – 602 117. [Pan: Aaach-2364-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nanda Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nanda Kumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 43BSection 92

pricing adjustments towards upward adjustment for brand development services. The Assessing Officer, in pursuant to directions of the ld. 4. TPO, has passed draft assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 21.12.2018 and made transfer pricing adjustments as suggested by the TPO at Rs.212 ... bonus/performance reward u/s.43B(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has filed objections before learned DRP :-4-: ITA. No:589/Chny/2024 against draft assessment order, but the learned DRP vide its directions dated 05.09.2019 has rejected objections filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer, in pursuant to the directions

Hyundai Motor India Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 8(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 437/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 437/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Hyundai Motor India V. Tax, Limited, Non Corporate Circle – 8(1), Plot No. H-1, Sipcot Chennai – 600 034. Industrial Park, Irungatukottai, Sriperumbudurtaluk, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu – 602 117. [Pan: Aaach-2364-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shrinilaybaransom, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriNilayBaranSom, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 92

expansion of Phase II manufacturing facility and as such IPS should be treated as a capital receipt not chargeable to tax. In the draft assessment order, the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) did not entertain the claim of the Assessee. :-6-: ITA. No:437/Chny/2024 6. Further, the Ld.AR stated that ... expansion of Phase II manufacturing facility and as such IPS should be treated as a capital receipt not chargeable to tax. In the draft assessment order, the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) did not entertain the claim of the Assessee. 14. We note that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case