← 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

Little Fairy Limited, Nicosia vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax. 2(2)(1), Delhi

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1512/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri G. C. Srivastava

I.T.A. Nos. 1511 & 1512/Del/2022 Assessment Year 2015-16. Assessment Year 2016-17. (i) Return filed on 27.11.2015 (i) Return filed on 29.11.2016 (ii) Draft assessment order (ii) Draft assessment order passed on 29.12.2018 passed on 30.12.2018 (iii) Final assessment (iii) Final assessment order 11.02.2019 order 20.02.2019 4. The ld. Counsel ... Appellant. Therefore, in this case, there was no such adjustment to the returned income, the Ld. A.O. ought not to have passed the draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) of the Act. Instead, the Ld. A.O. ought to have passed the assessment order under Section

Little Fairy Ltd, Nicosia vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1511/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri G. C. Srivastava

I.T.A. Nos. 1511 & 1512/Del/2022 Assessment Year 2015-16. Assessment Year 2016-17. (i) Return filed on 27.11.2015 (i) Return filed on 29.11.2016 (ii) Draft assessment order (ii) Draft assessment order passed on 29.12.2018 passed on 30.12.2018 (iii) Final assessment (iii) Final assessment order 11.02.2019 order 20.02.2019 4. The ld. Counsel ... Appellant. Therefore, in this case, there was no such adjustment to the returned income, the Ld. A.O. ought not to have passed the draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) of the Act. Instead, the Ld. A.O. ought to have passed the assessment order under Section

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Surat

ITA 453/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.453/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Ward-2(3)(8), Prop. M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Surat. Office No.401, Floor, H.No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqupj6439L Appellant By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 08/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

adjustment of Rs. 6,36,13,021/-. 3. On the basis of the Order passed by TPO, the assessing officer made the draft assessment order under section 144C(1) of the Act on 10 February 2014, against which, the assessee fled objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel on 11 March

Telefonica Uk Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int Tax), Range-4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, on this ground, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 772/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Us On Merits Is With Regard To Ground No.11-19 Which Releates To Cellular Roaming Charges & Treating The Amount Of Rs.7,45,72,450/- Taxable Under 9(1)(Vi) Of The Act & Also As Per India-Uk Dtaa Under Article 13(3). At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That This Issue Stands Covered In The Case Of M/S. Telefonica Depreciation Espana Sa Vs. Cit In Ita No.2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2022& 817/Bang/2022 For The A.Yrs. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 3. The Brief Facts Are That Assessee, I.E., Telefonica Uk Ltd Is A Company Incorporated Under The Laws Of United Kingdom Of Great Britain & Northern Ireland (Uk) & Is A Tax Resident Of Uk. The Assessee Is A Non-Resident Telecommunication Service Provider, Primarily Engaged In The Business Of Providing Mobile & Broadband Services Along With Various Other Ancillary Services Such As Text, Media Messaging, Games, Music, Video & Data Connections In The United Kingdom.

Section 144Section 148

line charges cannot be brought to tax as "royalty" under the Act as well as the DTAA. 9. The Assessing Officer in his draft assessment order rejected assessee‟s contention. In sum and substance his reasons are elaborated hereunder:- a. Interconnect Agreement is a complex procedure involving several activities ... within the scope of "process" and taxable as royalty under the Act as well as India-UK DTAA. 11. The Assessee challenged the draft assessment order by filing objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") on 29 April 2022. After considering the submissions of the Assessee, the DRP passed

Telefonica Uk Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int Tax), Range-4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, on this ground, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 771/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Us On Merits Is With Regard To Ground No.11-19 Which Releates To Cellular Roaming Charges & Treating The Amount Of Rs.7,45,72,450/- Taxable Under 9(1)(Vi) Of The Act & Also As Per India-Uk Dtaa Under Article 13(3). At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That This Issue Stands Covered In The Case Of M/S. Telefonica Depreciation Espana Sa Vs. Cit In Ita No.2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2022& 817/Bang/2022 For The A.Yrs. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 3. The Brief Facts Are That Assessee, I.E., Telefonica Uk Ltd Is A Company Incorporated Under The Laws Of United Kingdom Of Great Britain & Northern Ireland (Uk) & Is A Tax Resident Of Uk. The Assessee Is A Non-Resident Telecommunication Service Provider, Primarily Engaged In The Business Of Providing Mobile & Broadband Services Along With Various Other Ancillary Services Such As Text, Media Messaging, Games, Music, Video & Data Connections In The United Kingdom.

Section 144Section 148

line charges cannot be brought to tax as "royalty" under the Act as well as the DTAA. 9. The Assessing Officer in his draft assessment order rejected assessee‟s contention. In sum and substance his reasons are elaborated hereunder:- a. Interconnect Agreement is a complex procedure involving several activities ... within the scope of "process" and taxable as royalty under the Act as well as India-UK DTAA. 11. The Assessee challenged the draft assessment order by filing objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") on 29 April 2022. After considering the submissions of the Assessee, the DRP passed

Gammon India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 7(2)., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1440/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blem/S. Gammon India Ltd V. Dcit-Central Circle 7(2) 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 3/8 Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Hamilton House, J.N. Heredia Marg Aayakar Bhavan Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle 7(2) V. M/S. Gammon India Ltd Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 1, Gammon House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai- 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 92B(1)

vide letter dated 20.03.2023 and 28.07.2023 filed an additional ground of appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the TPO and the validity of the draft assessment order passed u/s 144C r.w.s.143(3) of the Act. 2. Further, in addition to the oral arguments made before the Hon'ble Bench during ... adjustment vide his order dated 30.01.2014 and therefore, in accordance with provision of section 144C (1), the AO was required to pass the draft assessment order, which he has done. 2.2 It is further submitted that the time limit prescribed in section 92CA(3A) is that AO should have passed

DCIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Gammon India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2990/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blem/S. Gammon India Ltd V. Dcit-Central Circle 7(2) 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 3/8 Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Hamilton House, J.N. Heredia Marg Aayakar Bhavan Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle 7(2) V. M/S. Gammon India Ltd Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 1, Gammon House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai- 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 92B(1)

vide letter dated 20.03.2023 and 28.07.2023 filed an additional ground of appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the TPO and the validity of the draft assessment order passed u/s 144C r.w.s.143(3) of the Act. 2. Further, in addition to the oral arguments made before the Hon'ble Bench during ... adjustment vide his order dated 30.01.2014 and therefore, in accordance with provision of section 144C (1), the AO was required to pass the draft assessment order, which he has done. 2.2 It is further submitted that the time limit prescribed in section 92CA(3A) is that AO should have passed

Akashdeep Singh Puri, Greater Kailash Part- II vs. DCIT, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(2), Civic Centre

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 434/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Assessing Officer, however, remained unconvinced and added back the amount of Rs.19,18,328/- to the income of the assessee while framing the draft assessment order. 5. Against the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before learned DRP. After considering the submission made and evidences furnished, learned DRP directed ... assessment proceeding through a speaking order. However, in the final assessment order, the Assessing Officer repeated the addition as was made in the draft assessment order. 6. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee reiterated the stand taken before the departmental authorities. Whereas, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon

Operadora Comercial De Desarrollo S.A. De C.V., Mexico vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2395/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 . Operadora Commercial De Vs. Dcit, Desarrollo S.A. De C.V. International Taxation, Mexico, Circle-2(2)(2), C/O- Bhatia & Bhatia, New Delhi Chartered Accountants, First Floor, 81, Hemkunt Colony, New Delhi Pan :Aabco9252E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 50Section 90(2)

capital gain under section 50 of the Act. Accordingly, he proceeded to tax the amount of Rs.5,42,90,669/- while framing the draft assessment order. Against the draft assessment order, the assessee raised objections before learned DRP. However, learned DRP upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly

M/S. Soham Estate, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1, Thane

ITA 690/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Dr. K. ShivaramFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Bayer Material Sciences Private Limited (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the assessee holding that draft assessment order passed without disposing off the objections to reopening of assessment filed by the assessee was not sustainable and without jurisdiction. The relevant extract ... aforesaid judgment reads as under: “11. In the present facts, we find that the draft Assessment order was passed on 30th March, 2015 without having disposed of the Petitioner's objections to the reasons recorded in support of the impugned notice. The reasons were supplied to the Petitioner only

Mondelez India Foods P.Ltd (Formerly Known As Cadbury India Limited), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7104/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14A

Payment of technical know-how royalty to CEPT 1,19,72,756 Total 253,73,00,819 5. The Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order incorporating the TP adjustments. The Assessing Officer, besides the TP adjustment also made additions on the corporate tax front as listed below – (1) Disallowance ... apply to this year and the disallowance has to be worked out in terms of the Rule 8D. The Ld. AO, in draft assessment order, at para 6.4, has noted that the submissions made by assessee in defense of suo-moto disallowance could not be accepted as against the submissions

Van Oord India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 792/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy() & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(14)Section 271(1)(c)

dated 29/01/2013 made an 3 ITA 792/Mum/2014 Van Oord India Pvt Ltd adjustment of Rs.10,60,78,531/-. The Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order incorporating the said addition. Aggrieved, the assessee filed its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP rejected the objections from the assessee

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Noida vs. M G Metalloy Pvt. Ltd., Noida

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4464/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 68

turn, has again noted that the ‘technical approval’ has been accorded to pass assessment orders in 18 cases including assessee, for which draft assessment orders were submitted by the Assessing Officer Noida. b) The JCIT in his approval memo for all 18 cases also directed the AO to ensure taking ... taking into consideration the above points, a copy of the final orders passed be sent to the JCIT. d) As many as 18 draft assessment orders including the assessment order of the assessee herein were combinedly placed before the JCIT in one go seeking statutory approval under 11 ITA Nos.4463

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Noida vs. M G Metalloy Pvt. Ltd., Noida

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4463/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 68

turn, has again noted that the ‘technical approval’ has been accorded to pass assessment orders in 18 cases including assessee, for which draft assessment orders were submitted by the Assessing Officer Noida. b) The JCIT in his approval memo for all 18 cases also directed the AO to ensure taking ... taking into consideration the above points, a copy of the final orders passed be sent to the JCIT. d) As many as 18 draft assessment orders including the assessment order of the assessee herein were combinedly placed before the JCIT in one go seeking statutory approval under 11 ITA Nos.4463

ACIT(Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tcs Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5904/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 19Section 40Section 90(1)(a)

1 ITA 5199/Mum/2019 ITA 5904/Mum/2019 M/s TCS Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI

Tata Consultancy Serrvices Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-1, Mumbai

ITA 5199/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 19Section 40Section 90(1)(a)

1 ITA 5199/Mum/2019 ITA 5904/Mum/2019 M/s TCS Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI

M/S. Steag Energy Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in respect to Ground No

ITA 835/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. Steag Energy Services Vs. Acit, (I) Pvt. Ltd, Circle-24(2), 903, Bhikaji Cama Bhawan, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcs1399L

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(2)

assessee company to its AEs. This adjustment figure of Rs. 2,81,01,754/- was adopted by the ld AO in the draft assessment order dated 16.03.2015, against which the assessee preferred objections before the ld DRP. The ld DRP vide its directions dated 29.10.2015 directed the AO to give

M/S. Kandla Energy and Chemicals Ltd., Village Devaliya, Tal. Anjar(Kutch) vs. Add. CIT, Gandhidham Range, Gandhidham(Kutch)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 399/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92CSection 92E

appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the order dated 28.08.2018 passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai, as against the draft assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating ... vide order dated 31-10-2017. After receipt of the TPO’s order, the Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order dated 15-11- 2017 u/s. 144C(1) of the Act and duly served on the assessee on 16-11-2017. 3.1. As per Section 144C

M/S Kepco Plant Service & Engineering Co Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT (International Taxation)- 3(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 886/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Rahul YadavFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

receipt were attributable to the operations in India. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer proposed an addition of INR 48,41,44,363/- in the Draft Assessment Order, dated 24/03/2022, passed under Section 144C of the Act. The Appellant filed objection before the DRP against the Draft Assessment Order, dated 24/03/2022

Kec International Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2512/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blekec International Limited V. Dcit – Circle – 5(2)(1) 463 Rpg House Room No. 571, 5Th Floor Dr. Annie Besant Road Aayakar Bhawan Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400030 Pan: Aacck5599H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(5)Section 234BSection 80JSection 90

section 144B of the Act: 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in passing the draft assessment order and the final assessment order in contrary to and without complying with the provisions of section 144B of the Act. 1.2. The Appellant prays ... that the draft assessment order and the final assessment order be held as bad in law and consequently, the assessment proceedings and the assessment order be quashed. 2. Transfer pricing addition on account of corporate guarantee: 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case