“draft assessment order”

Shri. Bhupendra Sitapchand Zaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO, It, Ward- 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is 10

erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 41,55,300/- on account of Section 50C of the Act as proposed in the Draft Assessment order by the assessing officer. 1.2. The DRP has erred in not appreciating the fact that the difference between the value adopted for the purpose ... without waiting for the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer, which had already been referred by the assessing officer prior to issuing Draft Assessment Order. 2. Objection against confirming disallowance of expenses in connection with the transfer 2.1 The DRP has erred in confirming the disallowance of expenses in connection

Accenture Solutions P Ltd (Asol), Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/ Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi & the Dy CIT, Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhaccenture Solutions Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Private Limited (‘Asol’) Assistant Commissioner Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Of Income Tax/Income- Complex, Phirojshah Tax Officer, National Nagar, Vikhroli West, Facelless Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Centre, Delhi Mumbai – 400079 The Dcit, Circle 14(1)(1) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach3235M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishant Thakkar/ Hiten Chande/ Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Respondent By : Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath Date Of Hearing 22.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ao (National Assessment Centre) Mumbai- 2, Dated 18.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 As Per The Direction Of The Drp Issued U/S 144C (5) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo), Based On The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Drp Has: General Ground 1. Erred In Assessing The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.2888,33,73,016 Against A Total Income Of Rs.2179,39,30,620 As Reported By The Appellant In Its Revised Return Of Income & Determining A Demand Of Rs.2186,98,55,847 Payable By The Appellant.

thus making the TP order invalid and unsustainable in law. Further, the learned AO has erred in passing a draft assessment order incorporating an invalid adjustment proposed in the TP order. Separate segmental margins 4. Erred in law and facts, in upholding that the international transactions of the Appellant ... credit, DDT pertaining to ASPL was reported by the Appellant. The said merger was also noted by the AO in the draft assessment order dated 26 December 2019. However, still the learned ΛΟ: 29. Erred in not granting credit of taxes deducted at source of Rs.198,94,21,730 claimed

Abbott India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Chaudhary, Jm Ita No. 2032/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year2009-10)

also disallowed several expenditure and also made an adjustment under Section 145A of the Act and accordingly, total income was determined in the draft assessment order at ₹51,67,05,479/-. Objections to the draft assessment order were filed before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel, who gave a direction ... officer placed at page number 55 of the paper book xii when the Dispute Resolution Panel was presented with the objections towards the draft assessment order which was signed by authorized signatory of Abbott India Ltd also clearly mentioned that the Solvay Pharma India private limited has now been merged

Abbott India Ltd.(Solvay Pharma India Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. RG.7(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Chaudhary, Jm Ita No. 2032/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year2009-10)

also disallowed several expenditure and also made an adjustment under Section 145A of the Act and accordingly, total income was determined in the draft assessment order at ₹51,67,05,479/-. Objections to the draft assessment order were filed before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel, who gave a direction ... officer placed at page number 55 of the paper book xii when the Dispute Resolution Panel was presented with the objections towards the draft assessment order which was signed by authorized signatory of Abbott India Ltd also clearly mentioned that the Solvay Pharma India private limited has now been merged

Accenture Solutions Pvt. Ltd (Asol) [As A Successor to Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd (Aspl), Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is dismissed as being infructuous

Bench: Us Placed On 2. Record Copy Of Order, Dated 04/01/2022, Passed By The Tribunal In Appeal Preferred By The Assessee/Appellant For The Assessment Year 2013-14 (Ita No. 530/Mum/2018) & Submitted That The Appeal Has Become Infructuous.

officer in the name of a non existing company, despite having prior information provided by the assessee and such facts recorded in the draft assessment order as well as the final assessment order, suffers from jurisdictional defect and, therefore, same is set aside. Accordingly, we hold that the assessment order

Shrikant Ghanshyam Shah, Mumbai vs. Int. Tax Ward-4(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleshrikant Ghanshyam Shah V. Int. Tax Ward – 4(2)(1) C/O. Ghanshyam T. Shah 17Th Floor, Air India Building D-501-2 Dun Apartment Nariman Point 225/227, J.D. Road Mumbai - 400021 Tardeo Road, Mumbai - 400007 Pan: Bjkps5638A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Bhupendra Shah Department Represented By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

rejected the submissions made by the assessee and proceeded to make the addition in the hand of the assessee and accordingly, passed the draft Assessment Order u/s. 144C(1) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee filed objections before Ld.DRP and before Ld. DRP assessee had filed ... Ahmedabad. b. Even though return was not processed us 143(1) as mentioned in Para no. 1 at page no. 1 of the Draft Assessment Order. 4. In the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ITO Int Tax Ward- 4(2)(1), Mumbai erred

M/S. Brightstar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/CIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

necessary relief may be provided.” Additional Ground: 1:0 Re: Validity of Order 1:1 The Assessing Officer has erred in passing the draft Assessment Order dated 17 March 2021 without following the procedure laid down in section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and therefore the said Order ... submits that the Assessing Officer has erred in issuing Notice of Demand dated 17 March 2021 u/s 156 of the Act alongwith the draft Assessment Order thereby not following the procedure laid down u/s. 144C of the Act. 1:3 The Appellant submits that the draft Assessment Order passed

Parle Biscuits Private Limited, Mumbai vs. NFAC, DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Interest on accounts receivable Rs. 5,32,605/- 2. Interest on interest receivable Rs. 1,79,28,615/- The Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order incorporating the said TP adjustment. The Assessing Officer also made an addition of Rs.3,26,32,245/- being the amount which the assessee ... Ld.AR submitted that the Assessing Officer did not consider the directions of the DRP and has retained the same income as in the draft assessment order. 21. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the asessee has submitted additional evidences before

M/S. Everflow Techno Tex Ltd., Mumbai vs. The ITO -Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

whom such loan has been taken. And therefore, the AO made an addition of Rs.1.50 crores u/s 68 of the Act in the draft assessment order dated 26.12.2019. Aggrieved by the addition proposed in the draft assessment order, the assessee preferred its objection before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel

Eclinical Works India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singheclinical Works India Pvt. Vs. Dcit-9(2)(2) Ltd., A 701 To 705, Aaykar Bhavan, Boomerang Chandivali M.K. Road, Farm Road, Chandivali Mumbai – 400 020 Studio, Mumbai – 400 072 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabce6639F Appellant .. Respondent

outset the ld. Counsel submitted that final assessment order dated 29.03.2016 is invalid as same was passed without passing a draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) of the Act. In support of his contention the ld. Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay ... variation which is prejudicial to the interest of such assessee. In the case of the assesse the AO has not passed any draft assessment order as per the requirement u/s 144C(1) of the Act in spite of making a variation of Rs.735,17,512/- to the arm’s length

ACIT, (Ltu)-2, Mumbai vs. Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

thereafter, passed the Transfer Pricing Order dated 30/01/2015 proposing adjustment of Rs. 231, 97,25,209. Subsequently the ld. AO passed Draft Assessment Order dated 02/03/2015 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(1) of the Act. 6. The assessee thereafter filled its objections before the same Dispute Resolution Panel ... time barred in terms of section 92CA(3) of the Act read with Section 153) and consequently, the passing of draft assessment order and the entire proceedings initiated u/s 144C is bad in law, because in absence of valid TPO order, the assessee ceases to be an eligible assessee

Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT (Ltu) - 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

thereafter, passed the Transfer Pricing Order dated 30/01/2015 proposing adjustment of Rs. 231, 97,25,209. Subsequently the ld. AO passed Draft Assessment Order dated 02/03/2015 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(1) of the Act. 6. The assessee thereafter filled its objections before the same Dispute Resolution Panel ... time barred in terms of section 92CA(3) of the Act read with Section 153) and consequently, the passing of draft assessment order and the entire proceedings initiated u/s 144C is bad in law, because in absence of valid TPO order, the assessee ceases to be an eligible assessee

Tata Aig General Insurance Comapany Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

following decisions, held that in case of an ‘eligible assessee’ a final assessment order passed by the AO without passing a draft assessment order is bad in law, which are as under:- International Air Transport Association v/s. DCIT [2016] 241 Taxman 249 (Bombay HC); Dimension Data Asia Pacific ... since, there would be no variation to the returned income in consequence of Order passed u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act; b) No draft Assessment Order was required to be passed in the case of Appellant; c) Accordingly, the Final Assessment Order dated 26 February 2014 passed