“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

Veg 'N' Table, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- Int. Tax 3(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2251/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 . Veg ‘N’ Table, Vs. Dcit, 801, Tower-A 1, Circle- International Tax - Ansal Corporate Park, 3(1)(1), Sector-142, Delhi Noida Pan :Aagcv2131A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Rs.35,01,740/- and the net long term capital gains of Rs.2,46,93,094/- was brought to tax. Accordingly, he framed the draft assessment order. Against the draft assessment order, the assessee raised objections before learned DRP. However, learned DRP rejected the objections of the assessee. 7. We have

Bokam Sanyasi Naidu, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward(International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 36/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.36/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17) Bokam Sanyasi Naidu, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward (International Taxation) Pan: Aiwpb 3717 D Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satya Sai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satya Sai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 5(2)(a)Section 50CSection 54E

stating that the salary was received by the assessee in India into his NRE account. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed his objections before the Ld. DRP. The Ld. DRP after considering the objections raised by the assessee, upheld the additions made ... draft assessment order amounting to Rs. 1,14,43,118/- received by the assessee in his NRE bank account in India. The Ld. DRP in its directions has observed that the remuneration to the assessee was received by him in Nigeria but directly credited to his NRE account in India

Milestone Dewellers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 565/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147

grant relief to the appellant. Thus, these grounds are partly allowed. 4.2 Ground No.1.1 relates to given two days' notice period after issuing Draft Assessment order (issued on 19.04.2021 and date of hearing fixed on 21.04.2021):In this ground of appeal, during the course of assessment proceedings a draft assessment ... this count before the AO and the AO after considering this submission passed the assessment order after following the procedure of issuing draft assessment order before passing the final assessment order. There is no specific period mentioned in the I.T. Act for providing reply to the Draft Assessment Order. Hence

Alstom (Thailand) Ltd (Formerly Known As Bombardier Transportation Signal (Thailand) Limited), Thailand vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2) Int. Taxation, Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1930/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Alstom (Thailand) Ltd. (Formerly Versus Acit, Circle 1(1)(2), Known As Bombardier International Taxation, Transportation Signal (Thailand) Delhi. Limited Thailand. No. 724, Phase 3, Gidc, Vadodara, Gujrat. Pan: Aadcb5702A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Shashwat Bajpai, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

profits of the PE and accordingly, brought an amount of Rs.2,10,20,833/- to tax. Though, the assessee objected to the draft assessment order before learned DRP, however, following their direction in assessment year 2016-17, learned DRP rejected assessee’s contention. Accordingly, the final assessment under challenge

The ACIT Corporate, Cochin vs. M/S.Kera Fibertex International P. Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the appeals by the assessee is allowed, and that by the Revenue, dismissed

ITA 361/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Manomohan Das (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. Sathisan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 153Section 153B

very outset, it was observed by the Bench that the order dated 28.3.2013 on record, signifying the impugned assessment, is titled ‘Draft Assessment Order’. The parties were accordingly required to bring on record the final assessment order for the relevant assessment year, duly attested, or otherwise inform if the words ... draft assessment order’ inscribed on the top of the order is by way of a mistake, i.e., in not deleting/removing the said words from the draft order. This is as in case of acceptance thereof, or no objection thereto raised by the assessee before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), within

M/S.Kera Fibertex International P. Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeals by the assessee is allowed, and that by the Revenue, dismissed

ITA 311/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Manomohan Das (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. Sathisan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 153Section 153B

Siemens Technology and Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC/ DCIT 8(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 588/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 92C

barred by limitation in terms of section 92CA(3A) r.w.s. 153 of the Act, the action of the Assessing Officer in passing the draft assessment order dated 30 March 2021 by invoking section 144C of the Act is without jurisdiction and hence, all the proceedings consequent to the draft assessment ... should 29-01-2031 have been passed on /or before 9 Transfer Pricing Order u/s 92CA(3) actually passed on 30/01/2021 10 Draft Assessment order passed on 31/12/2021 11 DRP directions passed on 31-12-2021 12 Final assessment order passed on 29-01-2022 6. In view

Apm Terminals India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed, holding that the assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer is barred by limitation and hence quashed

ITA 2511/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharishi, Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri Manish Kant and DeveshFor Respondent: Pravin D Salunkhe, D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 80ISection 92C

order fficer by an order under section 92CA (3) dated 12/7/2021 under section 92CA (3) dated 12/7/2021 incorporated in incorporated in draft assessment order draft assessment order dated 20/8/2021 pursuant to pursuant to Page 2 of 6 direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel – 1, Mumbai – 2 (the learned ... order under section 92CA (3) of the Act, whereas the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.11,64,10,372/– was proposed. 7. Accordingly, draft assessment order under section 144C of the Income Tax Act was passed on 20/8/2021, wherein the only adjustment was with respect to the above transfer pricing adjustment

Cricket South Africa (Npc), South Africa vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 604/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 194ESection 195

nature of royalty, hence, taxable in India. Accordingly, he brought the receipts to tax at the hands of the assessee while framing draft assessment order. Against the draft assessment order so passed, assessee raised objections before learned DRP, inter alia, on the ground that reopening of assessment under Section

Accion Africa-Asia Investment Company, Noida vs. ACIT International Taxation Circle 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 1815/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Delhi26 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 . Accion Africa-Asia Vs. Acit, Investment Company, International Taxation, C/O- Ankul Goyal, Advocate Circle-1(1)(1), Azb & Partners, A-8, Sector-4, New Delhi Noida Pan :Aajca1104H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

treaty benefits. Accordingly, he proceeded to tax the entire long term capital gain under the provisions of the Act, while framing the draft assessment order. 4 | P a g e AY: 2020-21 6. Against the draft assessment order so framed, the assessee raised objections before learned DRP. Learned

M/S. Portfolio Fashions Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Delhi

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

ITA 1241/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Portfolio Fashions Pvt. Ltd., V. Cit (A) 5A, Jindal Mansion Delhi Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg Mumbai - 400026 Pan: Aadcp7858D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Hiro Rai Department Represented By : Shri H.M. Bhatt

Section 143(2)

notice, assessee may furnish his response to the National Faceless Assessment Centre and as per clause (xiv), assessment unit shall make a revised draft assessment order after considering the response of the assessee and send it to the National Faceless Assessment Centre. As per the provisions of Section ... case of variation prejudicial to the assessee as proposed in the draft assessment order, the assessee is entitled to request for personal hearing and upon such request, the personal hearing may be provided by the authority, if the case of the assessee is covered by circumstances provided therein in exercise

Citigroup Global Markets (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 72/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Citigroup Global Markets (India) Private Limited The Dcit 1402, 14Th Floor, Circle -4(1), First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaecs7234F Citigroup Global Markets (India) The Jcit (Osd) Private Limited 4(1)(1) 1402, 14Th Floor, Room No. 640, 6 Th Floor, First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan, Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Mr. Jasmin Amalsadwala, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 73

itineraries and logbooks and final details. Accordingly he disallowed 20% of the said expenses amounting to ₹ 9,301,653/–. 010. Accordingly, the draft assessment order was forwarded to the assessee on 18/2/2014 in response to which the assessee on 20/3/2014 submitted that they have opted not to file objection before ... 45/Mum/2018 Citigroup Global Market (India) Private Limited; A.Y. 10-11 dispute resolution panel against the draft assessment order. Consequently assessment order under section 143 (3) of the act was passed on 26/3/2014 wherein the total income of the assessee is determined at ₹ 4,746,798,774/–. 011. Assessee preferred

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Citigroup Global Markets (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 45/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 73

Vinay Parmanand Hariani, Mumbai vs. ITO (It), Ward-2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 985/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vinay Parmanand Hariani, Ito, Int. Taxation Ward 2(2)(1), Kempinski Private Residences Room No. 1725, 17Th Floor, Air Vs. Unit 40F Dki Jakarta, 10310 India Building, Nariman Point, Indonesia. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabph 4179 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Piyush ChaturvediFor Respondent: Mr. Anil Sant, Sr. DR

Section 115GSection 69A

passed draft assessment 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer passed draft assessment 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order on 30.03.2022 proposing various additions. On further 0.03.2022 proposing various additions. On further 0.03.2022 proposing various additions. On further objections by the assessee ... Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has submitted that sessee has submitted that this addition was not part of the draft assessment order and no this addition was not part of the draft assessment order and no this addition was not part of the draft assessment order

DCIT- 3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2588/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

transactions to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in both the years under consideration. After the receipt of order of TPO, the AO passed draft assessment order and the assessee chose not to file its objection to the Dispute Resolution Panel. Hence the AO passed the final assessment order making various

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2587/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2318/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2317/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

Concentrix Services India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Minacs Private Limited, Minacs Limited & Adity Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited ), Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of It (OSD)10(2)(2)Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-9(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5764/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh Daia

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92(1)Section 92B

Assessing Officer incorporated the above transfer pricing & ITA No. 5823/Mum/2019 AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 & AY 2013-14 adjustment in the Draft Assessment Order, dated 16/03/2015, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) of the Act. In the aforesaid Draft Assessment Order, the Assessing Officer computed

Concentrix Services India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Minacs Private Limited, Minacs Limited & Adity Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited ), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-10(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5260/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh Daia

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92(1)Section 92B