draft assessment order — 4,773 case laws

Volvo Information Technology Ab, Sweden vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Taxation 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 2169/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153(1)

under Article 12(3) of India – Sweden DTAA and taxable at the rate of 10% on gross basis. Accordingly, he framed the draft assessment order. Against the draft assessment order so framed, the assessee raised objections before learned DRP. However, learned DRP concurred with the view expressed by the Assessing

Computer Modelling Group Limited, Canada vs. ACIT International Taxation Circle 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2091/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

grossly erred in treating the Appellant as an eligible assessee in terms of Section 144C of the Act and accordingly, passed draft assessment order under Section 144C of the Act, and thereafter passing the impugned final assessment order, beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section ... equivalent to the 10% of the aggregate amount of Rs. 3,64,35,459/- received/receivable respectively by the assessee. Accordingly, a draft assessment order was passed on 7 ITA Nos. 2090/Del/2023 & Ors. 30.12.2019. Since the assessee did not file any objection before the Ld. DRP, the Ld. AO passed

Computer Modelling Group Limited, Canada vs. DCIT Circle International Taxation 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2090/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

grossly erred in treating the Appellant as an eligible assessee in terms of Section 144C of the Act and accordingly, passed draft assessment order under Section 144C of the Act, and thereafter passing the impugned final assessment order, beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section ... equivalent to the 10% of the aggregate amount of Rs. 3,64,35,459/- received/receivable respectively by the assessee. Accordingly, a draft assessment order was passed on 7 ITA Nos. 2090/Del/2023 & Ors. 30.12.2019. Since the assessee did not file any objection before the Ld. DRP, the Ld. AO passed

Computer Modelling Group Limited, Canada vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2305/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

grossly erred in treating the Appellant as an eligible assessee in terms of Section 144C of the Act and accordingly, passed draft assessment order under Section 144C of the Act, and thereafter passing the impugned final assessment order, beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section ... equivalent to the 10% of the aggregate amount of Rs. 3,64,35,459/- received/receivable respectively by the assessee. Accordingly, a draft assessment order was passed on 7 ITA Nos. 2090/Del/2023 & Ors. 30.12.2019. Since the assessee did not file any objection before the Ld. DRP, the Ld. AO passed

Openwave Mobility, Inc., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle Int. Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1644/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Singhal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)

addition of Rs. 4,94,29,858/- as FTS income of the assessee for the following reasons recorded by him in the draft assessment order: 3 “(a) As per the relevant Software License Agreement, "software" means the proprietary Openwave Mobility software, including configurable components, to be provided by the Licensor ... assessee's proprietary trade secrets. On such terms and conditions of sale of the said software licenses, there is no finding in the draft assessment order that the user has a right to make copies or commercially exploit the right in the copyright of such software as laid down

Renault Nissan Technology & Business Centre India Private Limited, Kanchipuram vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 914/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.913 & 914/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Renault Nissan Technology & Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Business Centre India Private Limited, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 5(1), Tp2/1, Ascendas It Park, Natham Main Building, Aayakar Bhavan, Sub Post Office, Mahindra World City, No. 121, M.G. Road, Kanchipuram District, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Tamil Nadu 603 004. [Pan:Aadcr7253E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Both Dated 23.06.2023 Passed By The Nfac [Cit(A)] For The Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 10A

under Section 10AA of the Act. This submission made by the assessee did not find favour with the Assessing Officer who passed a draft Assessment Order dated 25.03.2003 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144(c)(i), determining the assessed income at ₹.20,68,24,860/-. The assessee, being ... aggrieved by the draft Assessment Order, filed an application before the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter 'the DRP' for brevity). The DRP accepted the case of the assessee and issued directions dated 20.12.2013, directing the Assessing Officer not to exclude the said expenditures from the turnover of the assessee, holding that

Renault Nissan Technology& Business Centre India Private Limited, Kanchipuram vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 913/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.913 & 914/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Renault Nissan Technology & Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Business Centre India Private Limited, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 5(1), Tp2/1, Ascendas It Park, Natham Main Building, Aayakar Bhavan, Sub Post Office, Mahindra World City, No. 121, M.G. Road, Kanchipuram District, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Tamil Nadu 603 004. [Pan:Aadcr7253E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Both Dated 23.06.2023 Passed By The Nfac [Cit(A)] For The Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 10A

under Section 10AA of the Act. This submission made by the assessee did not find favour with the Assessing Officer who passed a draft Assessment Order dated 25.03.2003 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144(c)(i), determining the assessed income at ₹.20,68,24,860/-. The assessee, being ... aggrieved by the draft Assessment Order, filed an application before the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter 'the DRP' for brevity). The DRP accepted the case of the assessee and issued directions dated 20.12.2013, directing the Assessing Officer not to exclude the said expenditures from the turnover of the assessee, holding that

Satish Babu Kannan, Bengaluru vs. ITO, Intnl Taxn Ward-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 370/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 195

u/s.142(1) of the Act and in response to the same, assessee did not file any return of income. Accordingly, the AO passed draft assessment order u/s.144C r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 24.03.2022 for the relevant assessment year 2015-16 and computed the income as under:- In view ... Total Income from other sources : Rs.2,78,03,067/- Total Taxable Income : Rs.2,79,11,567/- 3.2 Aggrieved against the draft assessment order u/s.144 of the Act, the assessee moved to DRP raising objections. The DRP noted that the assessment order dated 24.03.2022 was served on assessee

Siemens Technology and Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 725/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am Siemens Technology & Services Dy. Cit 8(2)(1) Private Limited Mumbai Plot No. 2, Sector 2, Kharghar, Vs. Node, Navi Mumbai- 410 210

For Appellant: Shri Jeet KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali

Section 143(2)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 3Section 92C

short) on various corporate grounds and the transfer pricing grounds. 2. The assessee has also raised additional grounds, challenging the validity of the draft assessment order and the final assessment order as being bad-in-law on the grounds of limitation and another additional ground on the limitation based ... proposed an adjustment of Rs.53,75,51,805/- to the total income of the assessee. The ld. AO then passed a draft assessment order u/s. 3 Siemens Technology and Services Private Limited vs. Dy. CIT 143(3) of the Act rws 144C(1) of the Act dated 26.12.2019 for which