← 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

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Noida vs. Zync Global Pvt. Ltd., Noida

ITA 4456/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 153Section 153D

above 18 cases were approved u/s. 153D of the Act and what is glaring is the stamp put wherein it has been stated “ Draft assessment order received late on 30.12.2016 beyond the time and thus having very little time for proper examination of the facts of the case records ... assessment records and seized materials, if any, incriminating the assessee and hence such approval is in the realm of an abstract approval of draft assessment orders and consequently suffered from total non-application of mind. (ii) approval granted hurriedly in a spur involving voluminous assessments spanning over 5 assessment years

Zync Global Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

ITA 7640/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 153Section 153D

above 18 cases were approved u/s. 153D of the Act and what is glaring is the stamp put wherein it has been stated “ Draft assessment order received late on 30.12.2016 beyond the time and thus having very little time for proper examination of the facts of the case records ... assessment records and seized materials, if any, incriminating the assessee and hence such approval is in the realm of an abstract approval of draft assessment orders and consequently suffered from total non-application of mind. (ii) approval granted hurriedly in a spur involving voluminous assessments spanning over 5 assessment years

Aka Ausfuhrkredit-Gesellschaft Mbh, Germany vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 783/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 147Section 148Section 9(1)(vii)

taxable in terms of Article 12 of the treaty as well as section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, he treated the draft assessment order. 8. Being aggrieved with the draft assessment order, the assessee raised objections before learned Dispute Resolution Panel (in short DRP). However, without deciding ... case laws and pass a speaking order. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order repeating the observation made in the draft assessment order. 9. Before us, ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee reiterated the stand taken before learned DRP, whereas, learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations

Hireright Llc, Usa vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon

ITA 3413/DEL/2023[Hireright LLC ]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kishore Kunal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Siddharth, CIT-DR
Section 10(50)Section 115ASection 2(24)Section 234ASection 234BSection 5Section 9

assessee are ancillary to the alleged ‘royalties’ and therefore also taxable as FTS. Accordingly, the Ld. AO proceeded to pass the draft assessment order on 29.09.2021 for AY 2019-20 and on 08.03.2022 for AY 2020-21 proposing to assess the income of the assessee ... taken by the client on the basis of the Assessee's findings. The assumption and assertions made by the Ld. AO in the draft assessment order are based on incorrect understanding of the facts in the present case. In totality of the above, it is respectfully submitted that the consideration

DCIT, Central Circle Ajmer vs. Vijay Granimarmo Private Limited, Naya Ghar Gulab Bari Ajmer

In the result of the cross objection of the assessee in CO No

ITA 648/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H)
Section 143(3)

granting approval by Joint Commissioner. The appellant had argued that there was no application of mind by the Addl. CIT as the draft assessment order was approved by the Addl. CIT on the same day. The appellant has advanced this argument without any evidence of non application of mind

DCIT, Central Circle Ajmer vs. Vijay Granimarmo Private Limited, Naya Ghar Gulab Bari Ajmer

In the result of the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 647/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2024AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H)
Section 143(3)

granting approval by Joint Commissioner. The appellant had argued that there was no application of mind by the Addl. CIT as the draft assessment order was approved by the Addl. CIT on the same day. The appellant has advanced this argument without any evidence of non application of mind

Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-Circle -4(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are allowed

ITA 1492/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270Section 9(1)(i)

Technical Services under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and also under Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA. 3.12. Thus, vide Draft Assessment Order, dated 02/06/2021, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) of the Act proposed addition ... Technical Services in the hands of the Appellant. 8 3.13. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed objection before DRP against the Draft Assessment Order, dated 02/06/2021. The DRP, vide order dated 30/03/2022, rejected the objections. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed Final Assessment Order, dated 27/04/2022 which was rectified vide, order dated

Ge Precision Healthcare Llc, Usa vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), Minto Road, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2623/DEL/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234FSection 270ASection 56Section 9(1)(vii)

through the material on record, directions of the two members of the ld. DRP affirming the action of the Assessing Officer in the draft Assessment Order, the directions of the other member of the ld. DRP directing that no taxability 26 GE Precision Healthcare LLC arises, keeping in view

Tagit Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1945/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar[Assessment Year: 2019-20]

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

held that in terms of Article 12(4) of the India Singapore DTAA, these are taxable as FTS. Accordingly, he proposed a draft assessment order. 5. Being aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee raised objections before Ld. DRP. However, the Ld. DRP simply endorsed the view

Dialog Axiata Plc, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation-2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2643/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 144CSection 147Section 191Section 195Section 5

deductor had not deducted tax at source as per the provision of section 191 of the Act. The ld. A.O. passed the draft assessment order u/s. 144C of the Act dated 29.09.2021 and determined the total income at Rs.4,16,80,240/- by holding that the receipts in the form ... taxed as 'royalty'. 4. The assessee filed its objection before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('ld. DRP' for short) challenging the draft assessment order passed by the ld. A.O. The ld. DRP disposed off the objections raised by the assessee vide order dated 31.05.2022 by upholding the order

Strides Shasun Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 932/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.932 /मुं/2017 (िन.व. 2012-13) Strides Pharma Science Limited [Formerly Known As Strides Arcolab Limited/ Strides Shasun Limited] 201, Devavrata, Sector -17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan: Aadcs-8104-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle – 15(3)(2), Mumbai Room No.451, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate With Shri Ninand Patade "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Anoop Hiwase सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15 /01/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23/01/2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’], For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised As Many As 12 Grounds. Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate with Shri Ninand PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase
Section 143(3)

this petition was filed on April 24, 2013, challenging the impugned orders dated January 30, 2013, of the Transfer Pricing Officer and the draft assessment order dated March 28, 2014, of the Assessing Officer, on the issue of jurisdiction. This issue has been decided in Vodafone IV and would ... deemed interest brought to tax on the amount not received when benchmarked to the arm's length price. Accordingly, we set aside the draft assessment order dated March 30, 2013, to the extent it seeks to bring to tax the arm's length price of the share issued

The Tata Power Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 753/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.753/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) The Tata Power Co. Ltd. Corporate Center, Block ‘B’, 5Th Floor, 34, Sant Thukaram Road, Carnak Bunder, Mumbai 400 009. Pan: Aaact-0054-A ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi with Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar&
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

respect of aforesaid loan transaction and corporate guarantee. The Assessing Officer further made additions/disallowances under various provisions of the Act. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order dated 29/12/2011, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP vide directions dated 28/09/2012 granted part relief to the assessee

Hgc Global Communications Limited, Haryana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 28/BANG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.28/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Hcg Global Communications Ltd., Vs. Dcit (It), 16/F Hutchison Telecom Tower, Circle – 2(2), 99 Cheung Fai Road, Bengaluru. Hong Kong. Pan : Aaech 5871 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri. Aliasgar Rampurawala, Vikram Udupa, Cas Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2024 O R D E R Per George George K:

For Appellant: S/Shri. Aliasgar Rampurawala, Vikram Udupa, CAsFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 195(2)Section 201Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

received by the assessee from VSL. The assessee objected to the proposed reassessment notice. However, the objections of the assessee were rejected and Draft Assessment Order was passed on 29.12.2019. In the Draft Assessment Order, the AO relying on the proceedings under section 201 of the Act in the case

DCIT, New Delhi vs. I Energizer Holdings Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

ITA 4653/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

while ignoring the statutory provisions of Section 144C of the Act, in terms of which, the learned A.O. ought to have passed a draft assessment order in the case of an eligible company, i.e. a foreign company. 5. That the assessment framed without issuance of statutory notice under Section ... while ignoring the statutory provisions of Section 144C of the Act, in terms of which, the learned A.O. ought to have passed a draft assessment order in the case of an eligible company, i.e. a foreign company.” 7. For the sake of ready reference, the facts from the Assessment Year

DCIT, New Delhi vs. I Energizer Holdings Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

ITA 4652/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

while ignoring the statutory provisions of Section 144C of the Act, in terms of which, the learned A.O. ought to have passed a draft assessment order in the case of an eligible company, i.e. a foreign company. 5. That the assessment framed without issuance of statutory notice under Section ... while ignoring the statutory provisions of Section 144C of the Act, in terms of which, the learned A.O. ought to have passed a draft assessment order in the case of an eligible company, i.e. a foreign company.” 7. For the sake of ready reference, the facts from the Assessment Year

DCIT, New Delhi vs. I Energizer Holdings Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

ITA 4651/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

while ignoring the statutory provisions of Section 144C of the Act, in terms of which, the learned A.O. ought to have passed a draft assessment order in the case of an eligible company, i.e. a foreign company. 5. That the assessment framed without issuance of statutory notice under Section ... while ignoring the statutory provisions of Section 144C of the Act, in terms of which, the learned A.O. ought to have passed a draft assessment order in the case of an eligible company, i.e. a foreign company.” 7. For the sake of ready reference, the facts from the Assessment Year

DCIT, New Delhi vs. I Energizer Holdings Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

ITA 4650/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

while ignoring the statutory provisions of Section 144C of the Act, in terms of which, the learned A.O. ought to have passed a draft assessment order in the case of an eligible company, i.e. a foreign company. 5. That the assessment framed without issuance of statutory notice under Section ... while ignoring the statutory provisions of Section 144C of the Act, in terms of which, the learned A.O. ought to have passed a draft assessment order in the case of an eligible company, i.e. a foreign company.” 7. For the sake of ready reference, the facts from the Assessment Year

Marvell India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 343/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.343/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Marvell India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Tower D, 10Th & 11Th Floors, Circle – 4(1)(2), Global Technoloyg Park, Marathahalli – Bengaluru. Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaecm 5559 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mukesh Butani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. G. Manoj Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.01.2024 O R D E R Per George George K:

For Appellant: Shri. Mukesh Butani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G. Manoj Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

international transaction entered into by the assessee with its AE during the previous year. Consequent to the TPO’s Order, a Draft Assessment Order was passed under section 144C of the Act on 21.12.2019. 3. Aggrieved, assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) (objections dated

Crisil Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 9(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1114/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)

Further, assessee has raised additional ground, which is reproduced below: - “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the draft assessment order dated 28 December 2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under section 144C(1) read with section

Crisil Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1564/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)

Further, assessee has raised additional ground, which is reproduced below: - “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the draft assessment order dated 28 December 2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under section 144C(1) read with section