← 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

Neel Metal Products Ltd (Formely Known As Neel Auto Pvt Ltd), New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-25, New Delhi

ITA 240/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

same has been dismissed by CIT (A). 14.1 We are of considered view that when more than 100 cases, the draft assessment order was forwarded by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 25, New Delhi to learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range – 4, New Delhi

Neel Metal Products Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-25, New Delhi

ITA 239/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

same has been dismissed by CIT (A). 14.1 We are of considered view that when more than 100 cases, the draft assessment order was forwarded by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 25, New Delhi to learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range – 4, New Delhi

Neel Metal Products Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-25, New Delhi

ITA 238/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

same has been dismissed by CIT (A). 14.1 We are of considered view that when more than 100 cases, the draft assessment order was forwarded by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 25, New Delhi to learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range – 4, New Delhi

Neel Metal Products Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-25, New Delhi

ITA 232/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

same has been dismissed by CIT (A). 14.1 We are of considered view that when more than 100 cases, the draft assessment order was forwarded by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 25, New Delhi to learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range – 4, New Delhi

M/S. Plaza Agencies Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 527/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

initio in as much as the assessment order has been passed contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Faceless Assessment Scheme as no draft assessment order was issued calling for objections of the appellant and, thus impugned order passed contrary to “Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019” deserves to be annulled

Raghav Sadanand Prabhu, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1806/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am Raghav Sadanand Prabhu Income Tax Ward 3(3)(1) Flat No. 2, Pawan Building, Air India Building, Room No. 1631, Vs. 16Th Floor, Nariman Point, Sitladevi Temple Road, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016 Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No. Agvpp 7832 L (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya : Shri Anil Sant Respondent By Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 : 05.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya
Section 142(1)Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

No.3005/2022 vide order dated 04.05.2022). As the assessee had not complied with any of the notices, the ld. A.O. proceeded to pass the draft assessment order u/s. 144C(1) of the Act dated 13.05.2023 and for which the assessee had filed its objection before ... vide order dated 28.02.2024 disposed of the objections raised by the assessee and proposed the additions made by the ld. A.O. in the draft assessment order for the reason that the assessee has failed to comply with the DRP proceedings. The ld. A.O. then passed the final assessment order dated

Yogesh Patel, Usa vs. DCIT Circle Int Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with consequences to follow as directed above

ITA 2065/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21 Yogesh Patel, Vs Dcit, 37319, Fowler Street New Ark Circle Int. Taxation 2(2)(2), California, New Delhi. Usa 94560. Pan: Arppp4747H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23.06.2023 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Dcit, Circle International Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao), For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Applicant Is Non-Resident Indian Settled In Usa & Is Us Tax Resident. During The Previous Year Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Reference, The Applicant Sold Ancestral Land Bearing S No14 Hissa, No 7 Pt, Village Goregaon, Tal Borivli, Mumbai Suburban Dist On December 11, 2019 & Disclosed Long Term Capital Gains Computed As Under:- Amt In Rs Sale Consideration - 18,56,87,500 Less: Deduction U/S 48 - 13,56,87,500 Net Sale Consideration (I) 5,00,00,000 Acquisition Cost Fair Market Value On 01-04-2001 Rs 10,400/- X 3647.80 Sq M 3,79,37,120 Less: 60% Reduction In Fmv Due To Encroachment 2,27,62,272 1,51,74,848 Indexed Cost 1,51,74,848 X [289/100] 4,38,55,311 Cost Of Acquisition (Ii) 4,38,55,311 Long Term Capital Gains: (I) - (Ii) 61,44,689

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 48

respect of sale of ancestral land. The assessee had failed to substantiate his claim of transfer expense: Accordingly, Draft Assessment Order was passed 28.09.2022 by making addition of Rs. 13,56,87,500/-. 3. Now the assessee has filed additional evidences before the Hon'ble DRP. In this regard

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Suisse (Singapore) Limited, Singapore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1711/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Harsh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 74

claimed exempt under Article 13 of India Singapore Tax Treaty. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and pursuant to the draft assessment order, the ld. A.O. passed the final assessment order dated 18.02.2020 r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act, determining the total income at Rs.94

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Suisse (Singapore) Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1698/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Harsh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 74

claimed exempt under Article 13 of India Singapore Tax Treaty. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and pursuant to the draft assessment order, the ld. A.O. passed the final assessment order dated 18.02.2020 r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act, determining the total income at Rs.94

Sitapuram Power Limited-Erstwhile Amalgamating Company (Now Amalgamated Company-Zuari Cement Limited), Kadapa vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleआआआआ आआआआ आआ./ I.T.A. (Tp) No.79/Hyd/2022 (आआआआआआआआ आआआआ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Erstwhile Amalgamating Company Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of – Sitapuram Power Limited Income Tax, Pan:Aajcs2098E Circle-1, (Now Amalgamated Company – Nellore. Zuari Cement Limited), Kadapa. Pan:Aajcs2098E (आआआआआआआआआ/ Appellant) (आआआआआआआआआआ/ Respondent) आआआआआआआआआ आआ आआ आआ/ Appellant : Adv. Shri Deepak Chopra & Nitin Narang By आआआआआआआआआआआ आआ आआ आआ / : Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit-Dr Respondent By आआआआआआ आआ आआआआआ / Date Of : 15/05/2024 Hearing आआआआआ आआ आआआआआ/Date Of : 02/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Adv. Shri Deepak Chopra &
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 80ISection 92Section 92(3)Section 92BSection 92D

name of amalgamating entity viz., Sitapuram Power Limited . Based on the order of Ld. TPO, the Ld. AO also passed the Draft Assessment order in the name of Sitapuram Power Limited despite the fact that the order was required to be passed in the name of the present appellant ... Zuari Cement Limited by the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). Consequently, it was observed by the Ld. DRP that the draft assessment order passed by the Ld.AO, was in the name of the non-existent company and therefore, the Ld. DRP in its wisdom relying

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Gupshup Technology India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2327/MUM/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Kumar Agrawal, Sr
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 153BSection 92C

order is barred by limitation, then assessee is no longer an eligible assessee and therefore, there was no requirement for passing draft assessment order. The ld AR argued that accordingly the final assessment order should have been passed on or before 31/03/2015 whereas here in this case final assessment order ... with the order of the TPO. After receipt of the order from the TPO determining ALP, the assessing officer is to forward a draft assessment order to the assessee, who has an option either to file his acceptance of the variation of the assessment or file his objection

Aapc Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT Circle 1(1)(1) Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 3342/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. S.K Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, CIT(DR)
Section 234ASection 270A

amount in dispute as royalty income both under the provisions of Act as well as under the Treaty. Accordingly, he framed the draft assessment order. Against the said draft assessment order, assessee raised objections before learned DRP. However, learned DRP 5 1868 & 3342/Del/2023 AAPC Singapore Pte. Ltd., endorsed the view ... expressed by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the draft assessment order was finalized. 5. Thus, it is seen that during the year, the AO made the following additions in the assessment order. Sl. Nature of receipts Payer entity Amount (INR) No. AY 2020-21 1 Loyalty Programme receipts AAPC India

Aapc Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 1868/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. S.K Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, CIT(DR)
Section 234ASection 270A

amount in dispute as royalty income both under the provisions of Act as well as under the Treaty. Accordingly, he framed the draft assessment order. Against the said draft assessment order, assessee raised objections before learned DRP. However, learned DRP 5 1868 & 3342/Del/2023 AAPC Singapore Pte. Ltd., endorsed the view ... expressed by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the draft assessment order was finalized. 5. Thus, it is seen that during the year, the AO made the following additions in the assessment order. Sl. Nature of receipts Payer entity Amount (INR) No. AY 2020-21 1 Loyalty Programme receipts AAPC India

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1470/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

reply from the said company Grand Realcon Private Limited has been received till date. However, after issuing Show cause Notice alongwith draft assessment Order, the facts was brought on record. The assessee has ITA Nos. 1469 & 1470/Del/2023 7 Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd. submitted a email conversation addressed ... mere paper and shell company. It is used for re-routing the money. 7. This office issued a show cause notice alongwith draft assessment order to the assessee on 22.03.2022 and the assessee replied on 25.03.2022. The assessee has submitted various points’ alongwith number case laws. On perusal

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1469/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

reply from the said company Grand Realcon Private Limited has been received till date. However, after issuing Show cause Notice alongwith draft assessment Order, the facts was brought on record. The assessee has ITA Nos. 1469 & 1470/Del/2023 7 Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd. submitted a email conversation addressed ... mere paper and shell company. It is used for re-routing the money. 7. This office issued a show cause notice alongwith draft assessment order to the assessee on 22.03.2022 and the assessee replied on 25.03.2022. The assessee has submitted various points’ alongwith number case laws. On perusal

Primera Medical Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 381/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri PVSS Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Smt. L. Sunitha Rao, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

margin at 24.84%, basing on which he suggested an upward adjustment of Rs. 9,86,66,724/-. Accordingly, learned Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order dated 20/09/2021, adding such an amount to the income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved, assessee preferred objections before the learned DRP and challenged, insofar

Macromill Research India LLP, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 308/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

respect of ITeS and Rs. 2,18,42,606/- in respect of interest on receivables. Accordingly, the learned Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order dated 24/03/2016. Aggrieved, assessee preferred objection before the learned DRP, and pursuant to the directions of the learned DRP dated 05/12/2016, learned Assessing Officer finalised

Sri Renganatha Co Operative Stores Ltd, Trichy vs. ITO, Circle 1, Trichy

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

ITA 1008/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

income and balance sheet alongwith salary details, trade charges, establishment expenses etc., Since there was no written reply or explanation regarding observations in draft assessment orders, notices dated 13.2.2021 and 24.02.2021 were issued to the assessee. Since there was no reply, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of bonus paid

Hemant Jivan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 196/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Wagle, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

issued to the Appellant on 21.03.2022 followed by a notice U/s 148 of the IT Act 1961. 7. Further, the draft Assessment Order was passed on 28.03.2023 under section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The Appellant filed a petition in form 35A objecting to the draft order

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Tps, Mangaluru vs. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed and assessee appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 714/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20

For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

assessee had subsequently vide letter dated 08.09.2021, 18.09.2021, 27.09.2021 and also placed request for personal hearing through video conferencing on 18.09.2021. 4.5 A draft assessment order u/s. 143(3) was forwarded to assessee on 24.09.2021 and along with an intimation for personal hearing through video conferencing was scheduled ... were specifically called upon on any previous occasions. Assessee was also called upon to file the objections to the proposed addition in the draft assessment order on or before 26.09.2021 which was only two days before passing of the final assessment order dated 28.09.2021. 4.7 The assessee submitted that