draft assessment order — 4,773 case laws

Yogesh Kotiyal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Int Tax 2(1)2, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 244ASection 270ASection 5(2)(a)Section 6(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)Section 90

evidencing residency in the Australia and proof of payment of taxes in Australia 15. The AO has in the Draft Assessment Order under Section 144C of the Act, disallowed the exemption of Rs.55,37,591/- claimed under Article 15(1) of the India-Australia DTAA read with Section ... against returned income of Rs.10,82,270/-. 7 Yogesh Kotiyal 16. The Assessee filed Objections before the ld. DRP against the Draft Assessment Order on 7 April 2022 under Section 144C(2)(b) of the Act challenging the denial of the exemption of INR 55,37,591 claimed under Article

Advics Company Ltd., Karnataka vs. ACIT Circle International Taxation-1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1053/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU (Vice President), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

drawing parity between the facts of that case and the assessee in the present case. 3.5 The Ld. AO vide his draft assessment order dated 10.06.2021 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act proposed to make an Page 5 of 33 ITA No.- 1053/Del/2022 Advics

Axis Bank Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 365/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Axis Bank Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Opp. Income-Tax, Samartheshwar Temple, Nr. Law Circle 1(1)(1), Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380006 Pan : Aaacu 2414 K अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2023/03.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.04.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee-Appellant Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 28Th July, 2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:- “1. Disallowance In Respect Of Annual Technical Fees (Tax Effect - Rs. 16,84,276) 1.1 The Learned Drp Has Erred In Upholding Addition Made By Ao In Respect Of Treating Annual Technical Services (Ats) Fees Paid To Infosys Limited To The Extent Of Rs. 48.66 Lacs As Prior Period Expense. 1.2. It Is Submitted That The Expenditure Relates To Amount Payable To Infosys & No Part Of The Amount Was Claimed As Expenditure At Any Time In The 2 Axis Bank Limited Vs. Acit Ay : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C

assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting, and applying the matching principle, the impugned expenses were proposed to be disallowed in the draft assessment order framed in terms of section 144C of the Act. The assessee objected to the proposed disallowance to the Dispute Resolution Panel ... Court 5.3.2 We may observe here that the process before the DRP is a continuation of assessment proceeding as it is only the draft assessment order which is being challenged before it. The final assessment order is yet to be passed by the assessing officer. Hence

East Bridge Capital Master Fund I Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2976/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआ.अ.सं.2976 2976/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2020-2021) 2976 2976 East Bridge Capital Master Fund I Ltd. C/O. Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29Th Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400 028 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan:Aaece8814F बनाम Vs.

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agarwal & Fenil Bhatt, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT (DR)

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 70(2)

taxable under the normal provisions at Rs.83,59,02,331/- as against Rs.70,95,52,656/- offered by the Assessee. 4. Aggrieved against draft assessment order dated 8.9.2022, the Assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP vide direction dated 28.6.2023 dismissed the objections. The Assessing Officer

Sunil Kapoor, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Intl. Taxation 2(1)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3314/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2021-22 Shri Sunil Kapoor, Vs. Acit K-77, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, Circle Intt. New Delhi-110 024 Taxation 2(1)(2) Pan Aoips5698J New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Tyagi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

reason given in para 3.11. Accordingly, the total income was proposed to be assessed at Rs. 13,50,54,860/- vide draft assessment order dated 27.12.2022 under section 144C(1) of the Act. 7. The assessee objected to the proposed aforesaid disallowances before the Ld. DRP. The written objection filed

Ayesa Ingenieria Y Arquitectura S.A., Noida vs. ACIT Intl. Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2174/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Sarin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 192BSection 195Section 201Section 40Section 7(3)

which is against the principle of natural justice, hence the action of the Ld. AO is completely unjustified and illegal, additions proposed in draft assessment order are liable to be deleted. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the entire salary amount payable to expatriate employees ... which is against the principle of natural justice, hence the action of the Ld. AO is completely unjustified and illegal, additions proposed in draft assessment order are liable to be deleted.” 3. The assessee company is registered under the laws of Spain and operates in India through its branch office

Ayesa Ingenieria Y Arquitectura S.A., Noida vs. ACIT Intl. Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2173/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Sarin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 192BSection 195Section 201Section 40Section 7(3)

which is against the principle of natural justice, hence the action of the Ld. AO is completely unjustified and illegal, additions proposed in draft assessment order are liable to be deleted. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the entire salary amount payable to expatriate employees ... which is against the principle of natural justice, hence the action of the Ld. AO is completely unjustified and illegal, additions proposed in draft assessment order are liable to be deleted.” 3. The assessee company is registered under the laws of Spain and operates in India through its branch office

Shell Information Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4 (2) (1), Mumbai

ITA 3339/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 2(24)Section 234ASection 234BSection 270A

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Netherlands (hereinafter referred to as `the DTAA'). Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued Draft Assessment Order, dated 15/09/2022, under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Act proposing addition of IT Support Service ... issue which is recorded in Para 53 as under: "5.3 Discussions and directions of DRP 5.3.1 We have considered the draft assessment order, submissions of assessee and material. We have seen that under the Master Services Agreement, the assessee SITI BV has furnished technical and advisory services to various clients

Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Energy Solution Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

ITA 739/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountαντ Μεμβer

For Appellant: Dhanesh Bafna a/wFor Respondent: Anil Sant

Length Price (ALP) adjustment of Rs.99,96,72,076/- on account of international transactions of the assessee. The assessing officer issued the draft assessment order dated 12.04.2021 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Act after considering the TPO order. The total income of the assessee was computed

DCIT, Central Circle-2.4, Chennai vs. Shri Vivek Papisetty, Chennai

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 211/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.211/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit Shri Vivek Papisetty बनाम Central Circle-2(4) No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Brcpp-6180-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 2. Cross Objection No.8/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.211/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) बनाम/ Shri Vivek Papisetty Dcit No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, Vs. Central Circle-1(4) 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Brcpp-6180-N (अपीलाथ"/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit)- Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Fca)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (FCA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)- Ld. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)

para-79 of the impugned order. It was noted that the Additional CIT, Central Range-2, Chennai had duly accorded prior approval for draft assessment orders submitted by Ld. AO. The assessee’s ground that the assessment was barred by limitation was also rejected since the same could