“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

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

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

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

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

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

Sabre Glbl Inc., New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 559/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 216/Del/2016, A.Y. 2012-13 Ita No. 559/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 4838/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 7724/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 6040/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17 Sabre Glbl Inc. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Tax, Adv. Circle-3(1)(2), C/O. Ms Associates, International Tax F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sabre Glbl Inc. Income Tax, Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. International Taxation, C/O. Ms Associates, New Delhi F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

issued to the assessee. A detailed questionnaire in this regard was later issued asking for various information and explanations. The draft assessment order dated February 23, 2015 for AY 2010-11 under Section 144C(1) / 143(3) of the Act by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle

Sabre Glbl Inc., New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Circle- 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4838/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

Sabre Inc, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 216/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi vs. M/S. Sabre Glbl Inc., Gurgaon

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6731/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

Lovely Promoters Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

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

ITA 770/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a

Section 127Section 127(1)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153C

broad contours of the 2019 Circular have been adverted to by us hereinabove. 14.1 Insofar as the instant case is concerned, admittedly, the draft assessment order was passed on 30.12.2018. 15. The respondent/assessee had filed its objections qua the same, which were disposed of by the Dispute Resolution Panel

Jabil Circuit India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -3, Mumbai

ITA 349/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.349/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jabil Circuit India Pvt. Ltd. Arena House, 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 103 Road No. 12, Opp Tulip Telecom Marol Midc, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. बनाम / Vs. Pcit-03, Mumbai Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7114K (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Revenue By: Shri Nitesh Joshi Shri Ankush Kapoor (Cit Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/02/2024 Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: आदेश / Order This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-03, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 18.01.2021 For

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Nitesh Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 263Section 263(1)

block of assets, the AO allowed the claim for depreciation in respect of Chennai unit, and the AO on 27.12.2016 passed the draft assessment order u/s 143(3) read with section 144C(1) of the Act, and after Ld. DRP direction on 21.09.2017, the AO passed the final assessment order

Sudarshan Arora, Birmingham vs. DCIT International Taxation, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1516/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

assessee declared long term capital gain (LTCG) of Rs 49,71,567/- in the return of income. The ld. AO framed the draft assessment order disallowing the indexed cost of construction of Rs 81,36,226/- (original cost of Rs 29,33,350/-) for want of documentary evidences. The assessee

Castrol India Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

ITA 2433/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blecastrol India Limited V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Technopolis Knowledge Park Delhi Mahakali Caves Road Chakala, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400093 Pan: Aaacc4481E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Chandni Shah, Shri Hardik Nirmal & Ms. Riddhi Maru Department Represented By : Ms. A. Alankrutha

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

therefore, is void-ab-initio, bad in law and is liable to be quashed. It is humble prayer of the Appellant that the draft assessment order and the final assessment order are bad in law, null and void and liable to be quashed.” 4. At the time of hearing, Ld.AR ... Income Tax Act, 1961 in the computation of income itself by the assessee (refer Pg No. 77 of the PB). In its draft assessment order, the Assessing Officer proposed an addition only pertaining to Share Value Plan of ₹.10,14.49,891/- i.e., the closing balance as per the Balance Sheet

Air Liquide Global Ec Germany Gmbh, Germany vs. ACIT, Circle International Tax 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the stay application is

ITA 2401/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 144C(13)Section 44B

deemed profit and gains of the PE and brought an amount of Rs. 8,97,38,839/- to tax. Accordingly, he framed the draft assessment order. Against the draft assessment order so framed, the assessee raised objections before learned DRP. While deciding the issue, learned DRP held that the assessee

Marulasidappa Gundagathi Dyamavvanahalli, Davangere vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davangere

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

ITA 898/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2010-11 Marulasidappa Gundagathi Dyamavvanahalli #2035/148, Nutan Nilaya Ito 12Th Cross, Anjaneya Badavane Ward-1 Vs. Davanagere 577 005 Davangere Karnataka Pan No.Agepd9313P Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Aparithivel, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Dated 29.9.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1: The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri AParithivel, D.R

Section 142Section 234Section 250Section 68

creditworthiness of these persons. 9. Further, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the assessee was issued show cause notice along with Draft Assessment Order dated 24.09.2021 fixing the date for making the compliance on 26.09.2021. However, the assessee has not responded to the final show cause notice. Hence ... safely presumed that the assessee has nothing to say in this matter. Hence the draft assessment order is been finalized herewith. Marulasidappa Gundagathi Dyamavvanahalli, Davangere Page 4 of 7 10. Hence, a proposal for additions of unexplained Sundry Creditors to the extent

Corning Sas India Branch Office, Haryana vs. DCIT/ACIT-Int-Tax, Haryana

The appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 528/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat Kul Bharat Kul Bharatkul Bharat Shri Shri Shri

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshresth, CIT-DR &

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 270

Paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the DTAA between India and France at the rate of 10%. At the stage of the draft assessment order under Section 144C of the Act dated 12th April, 2021, the Assessing Officer sought to tax the said interest income at the rate ... time of hearing, the learned Representative contended that the aforesaid aspect was succinctly brought out before the Assessing Officer at the stage of draft assessment order as well as during the proceedings before the DRP. In support of the above proposition, reliance has been placed on the following decisions

Bsc C&C Joint Venture, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2284/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 40Section 801A(4)(i)Section 80I

under section 801A(4) of the Act. 4.2 The assessee filed objections before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Delhi (“DRP”) against the draft assessment order of the Ld. AO. Pursuant to the directions of the Ld. DRP dated 31.05.2022 and adjudication of the Ld. AO/TPO on the same ... revised 15,83,73,418/- computation filed by the assesee Add: Addition as discussed in para 4.2 of 19,40,67,731/- draft assessment order Adjustment as per giving effect order 34,10,057/- of TPO, as discussed in para 2.5.2 Claim of deduction of retention

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 631/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate with Shri Nikhil Tiwari,AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha, CIT-DR and Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.AR

Section 116Section 143(3)Section 92C

assessee in ground No.19 reads as under:- “19. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned TPO/AO erred in passing draft assessment order by following procedure laid down under section 144C of the Act without appreciating that provision of Section 144C is not applicable during ... Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Zuari Cement Ltd. (supra), wherein it is held that procedure of issuing draft assessment order laid down in the section 144C is to be followed with effect from 1-10-2009. In the instant case, though the assessment year involve

Sarva Capital Llc, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle International Tax 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2073/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nirbhay Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B.Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 112Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 270A

Officer brought to tax the entire long-term capital gain under the provisions of domestic law and accordingly, completed the assessment. Against the draft assessment order, so passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee raised objections before learned DRP. However, learned DRP, in sum and substance, endorsed the views

Yokogawa India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Taxpayers Unit, Bangalore

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

ITA 2088/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14A

After the receipt of TPO order dated 13.10.2016, the AO passed the draft assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C on 24.10.2016 making the TP adjustment and he also made addition u/s. 14A. Aggrieved, the assessee filed objections before the DRP and the DRP passed the order on 3.7.2017. Accordingly

M/S Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 575/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 144ASection 32ASection 35Section 37(1)Section 80I

Arms Length Price of the same to the TPO, who proposed additions by way of transfer pricing adjustment. Hence the AO passed the draft assessment order making additions on account of transfer pricing adjustments and also various other additions. Since the assessee did not prefer to object the draft assessment

Nat West Markets Plc- India Branch, Kolkata vs. ACIT(I.T)-1(2), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1364/KOL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Nat West Markets Plc-India Acit (I.T)-1(2), Kolkata Branch Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 2 Nd 907, Regus, 9Thfloor, Floor, Psarcadia,4A, Abandindra Nath Vs. 110, Shanti Pally, Thakur Sarani, Kolkata-700016, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacct8020E Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ar Revenue By : Shri Gaurav Kanujia, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kanujia, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44ASection 56Section 68

read with section 144C(13) of the Act dated 27.01.2023, wherein the ld. AO reiterated the finding given by him in the draft assessment order, save and except that he held that interest of ₹6,18,50,000/- could not be added to the assessee’s income

M/S. United Breweries Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1020/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K R Vasudevan &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

sponsoring cricketing events held during 2008 to ICC. The said amount was proposed to be disallowed by the AO in the Draft Assessment Order, for the following reasons: - Similar expense has been disallowed in the earlier years as part (i) of the Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of AMP expenses

M/S. United Breweries Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 1019/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K R Vasudevan & Shri Ankur Pai, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Company, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) - 4(1)(1), Mumbai, India

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3254/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Us, It Has Been Stated That This Issue Stands Covered By The Decision Of The Tribunal In Assessee’S Own Case For The A.Y.2018-19 & 2019-20 Which Has Followed Earlier Three Tribunal Orders.

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 9

claimed the entire tax deducted at source amounting to INR 13,11,67,860 as refund 7. The ld. AO in the draft assessment order alleged that RGA International Reinsurance Company constitutes a fixed place PE in India dependent agent PE of RGA IRELAND in India. He has also alleged