“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

Sad Bhawna, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the six quantum appeals and six penalty appeals of the assessee for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2947/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

Section 254

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

Sad Bhawna, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the six quantum appeals and six penalty appeals of the assessee for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2946/DEL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

Section 254

Sad Bhawna, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the six quantum appeals and six penalty appeals of the assessee for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2945/DEL/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

Section 254

Nipro Corporation, Japan, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1867/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Nipro Corporation, Japan Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Nipro India Corporation Pvt. Income Tax , Ltd. International Taxation, Plot No.3-1, Circle 3(3)(1) Room No.1630, 16 Th Floor, Air Midc, Kesurdi, Khandala, Tal, Khandala, Satara, India Building, Mumbai-412802 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecn4534F

For Appellant: Shri Kishore Phadke, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain, DR

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

read with section 115A of the Act of ₹1,33,67,390/-. Nipro Corporation Japan; A.Y. 2017-18 014. The draft assessment order under Section 144C of the Act was 30th passed on July, 2021, at the total income of ₹9,56,14,440/-. 015. Against the above adjustment, assessee ... article 5 and article 7 of the double taxation avoidance agreement, same cannot be taxed. The learned that assessing officer while passing the draft assessment order the assessee was categorically asked that such a receipt should be brought to tax in view of article 22 (3) of the Double Taxation

Star Television Entertainment Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 1814/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)

approved by the TPO to non AE transactions and determining the profit on estimate basis. The Assessing Officer, while passing the draft assessment order held that though the Transfer Pricing Officer has determined a taxable income in India under PSM, such transaction is restricted to 11 ITA 1813 & 1814/Mum/2014 Star ... case also the assessing officer has relied on the directions of the DRP for AY 2007-08 (refer page 27 para 15 of draft assessment order) in order to estimate the profit on the non-AE transactions. The facts in assessee's case for the year under consideration being identical

Star Asia Region Fz Llc, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 1813/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)

Ashwin Kapur, Delhi vs. ACIT-Circle Int Tax 2(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 474/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.474/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2020-21 बनाम Ashwin Kapur Acit D-4/4101, Vasant Kunj, Vs. Circle (Int. Tax) 2(1)(2) South West, Civic Centre, New Delhi. Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aqapk9804E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 48

Improvement in terms of Rule-9, Income-tax (Dispute Resolution Panel) Rules, 2009 in support of objections to proposed addition as per Draft Assessment order u/s 144C and plead for allowance of renovation expenses incurred. During the course of proceedings before DRP, as per Letter No MSDA/2022-23/Ashwin/IT/SCR202021-DRP/08 dated 8th September ... called for. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed (Copy of order enclosed) Appellant’s objection to Draft Assessment order u/s 144C and various submissions and documents submitted before DRP-1 Delhi were dismissed vide order (DIN) No ITBA/DRP/M/144C(5)/2022-23/1047968058(1) dated

Boeing India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

ITA 802/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 92

void ab initio. 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the draft assessment order dated April 15, 2021 is barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 153 of the Act; 1.2. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO erred ... passing the draft assessment order without making a reference to the Ld. TPO under Section 92 CA(3) of the Act and relying upon the findings of the TP Order dated January 29, 2021 issued in relation to different assessee (i.e. Boeing International Corporation India Private Ltd. (BICIPL

Vishwa Mittal Bahal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax 1(1)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1690/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Hon’Ble Vice-A N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri G. S. Kohli

Section 1Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 54Section 54ESection 55Section 69A

Brief facts are that the assessee, an Individual filed his return of income on 30.03.2019 declaring income of Rs.3,89,561/-. A draft assessment order was passed under section 144C of the Act on 28.09.2021 proposing to deny the benefit of exemption of long term capital gain and making ... property the Assessing Officer denied the cost of acquisition claimed by the assessee while computing the long term capital gain and accordingly a draft assessment order was passed proposing to make an addition of Rs.2,04,00,000/-. 5. The assessee approached the DRP and before the DRP the assessee

M/S. Malaysian Airline System Berhad, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1012/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1012/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Malaysian Airline System Berhad Dcit 10Th Floor, Dr. Gopal Das Bhawan, Vs. (International 28, Barakhamba Road, Taxation), Circle 2(2)(1), 4Th Floor, New Delhi. Block E-2, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacm5033C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)

direction u/s 144C(5) to the Assessing Officer, while departing from the treatment of income of the Head Office in the draft assessment order. 4. The Dispute Resolution Panel is not correct in holding that the profit from services provided by the head office of the appellant in Malaysia ... services provided in Malaysia by the Head Office of the assessee company to Jet Airways and JetLite are taxable in India. In the draft assessment order the AO proposed to treat receipts from Jet Airways India Ltd. and JetLite India Ltd. as taxable in India in the hands

Luxottica India Eyewear Private Ltd., Haryana vs. Circle 13(1), Delhi

ITA 793/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 793/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Luxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Vs. Dcit Ltd. Circle 13(1), 7Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 Pan : Aabcl3871C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao &For Respondent: Sh. Manvendra Goyal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 92C

been initially done on protective basis resulting in an adjustment. 2.3 The Ld. AO taking into consideration the TPO proposal passed at draft assessment order against which assessee had approached the DRP and the DRP in its order dated 19.01.2022 has taken into consideration the profile of business

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Macrotech Developers Limited (Formerly Known As Lodha Developers Pvt Ltd.) (Successor of M/S Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Pvt Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.2385/Mum/2022 filed by the learned

ITA 2385/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Macrotech Developers Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Income (Formerly Known As Lodha Tax, Developers Pvt. Ltd.)(Successor Of Central Circle-7(3), M/S Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Room No,655, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Pvt. Ltd.) 412, 4Th Floor, 17 G, Vardhman M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Market, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort Mumbai 400001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl1490J

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

construction contract is applicable to the assessee and therefore, same was disallowed and capitalized to the cost of the project. Accordingly, the draft assessment order under Section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) of the Act Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 was passed on 21st December, 2018, determining ... normal computation and the book profit was computed at ₹330,97,63,757/-. 08. Against the draft assessment order assessee did not file any objection before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel and therefore, final assessment order under Section 143(3) read with section 144C (13) was passed on 18th February