“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

N M Rothchild & Sons Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed

ITA 1382/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 144C(13)

India – UK DTAA, the Assessing Officer brought them to tax on gross basis by applying the rate of 10%. Accordingly, he framed the draft assessment orders. Against the draft assessment orders, the 3 | P a g e ITA Nos.517 & 1382/Del/2022 AYs: 2018-19 & 2019-20 assessee raised objections before learned

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

ITA 1992/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ninad Patade, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT D.R

Section 143Section 144C(1)Section 14ASection 92C

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

Van Oord Dradging and Marine Contractors Bv, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT, International Tax-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1146/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Section 144C(5)Section 234B

represents pure allocation of cost, the same have not been considered as taxable by the assessee. 10. However, the ld. AO in its draft assessment order dated 27/12/2019 has considered the said payments to be for the use of Information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience in India ... Commercial and scientific in nature. 11. The ld. DRP following its own direction in case of the assessee for earlier years, approved the draft assessment order passed by the ld.AO vide its directions dated 19/03/2021. 12. The ld. AO in conformity with the directions of the ld.DRP and relying

Serco India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1432/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shrianil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Ld. CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

segment of “Management Services”. 7. Consequently, on the basis of the Ld. TPO‟s order dated 16.01.2015, the Ld. AO passed a draft Assessment Order dated 18.02.2015 under section 143(3) of the Act. 8. The Assessee being aggrieved against the draft assessment order dated 18-02-2015, filed ... Assessee further claimed that though the Ld. AO has not proposed any disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act in Draft Assessment Order, however the Ld. DRP while relying upon the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Centrica (supra) show-caused the Assessee

Standard Chartered Investments & Loan India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 848/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

respect of interest received from SCB India on fixed deposits. The aforesaid transfer pricing adjustment was incorporated in the Draft Assessment Order, dated 14/02/2013. In addition, the Assessing Officer also proposed corporate tax addition which included, inter alia, disallowance of INR 9,00,000/- under Section ... referred to as ‘the Rules’), and (b) disallowance of INR 10,42,446/- being excess depreciation claimed by the Appellant. 5. Against the Draft Assessment Order, dated 14/02/2013, the Appellant filed objections before DRP which were disposed of vide order dated 01/11/2013. As per the direction of DRP, transfer pricing

Dhl Logistics P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1249/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhdhl Logistics Private Vs. National E-Assessment Limited, 201A, Silver Centre Utopia, Cardinal Gracias Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Road, Chakala, Assistant Commissioner Andheri (East) Of Income Tax/Income Mumbai – 400099 Tax Officer, National E- Assessment Centre Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacm6824H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Madhur Agrawal/Fenil Bhatt/ Darshan Dalal Respondent By : Jayant B Jhaveri Date Of Hearing 19.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(Drp-1), Mumbai, Dated 15.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Order Dated 1 November 2019 Passed By The Learned Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Transfer Pricing)-1(2)(2), Mumbai ('Ld. Tpo) Under Section 92Ca Of The Act Is Beyond The Time Limit Prescribed Under Section 92Ca(3A) R.W.S 153 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act), Thus Making The Transfer Pricing Order & Resultant Final Assessment Order Dated 30 April 2021 Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Null & Void & Liable To Be Quashed. The Following Grounds Are Without Prejudice To Ground 1 Above.

For Appellant: Madhur Agrawal/Fenil Bhatt/For Respondent: Jayant B Jhaveri

Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92CSection 92D

Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National E-assessment Centre Rs.65,03,77,598/- was proposed by the assessing officer in the draft assessment order on 07.12.2019. 4. The assesse has filed objections from the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) against the additions proposed by the assessing officer in the draft assessment ... Appellant most humbly submits vide the additional grounds of appeal (corresponding Ground 1 of the Form 36), that the transfer pricing order, draft assessment order and the final assessment order are bad in law, null and void and liable to be quashed. We crave leave of your Honor

Mr.Vineet Shrivastava, Bhopal vs. The ITO ( It&Tp), Bhopal

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

ITA 107/IND/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimr. Vineet Shrivastava Ito (It & Tp) E-7/795, Arera Colony Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bcxps 2544 H Assessee By Shri Rohit Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(12)Section 144C(13)

rival submissions and carefully perusal of the records at the outset, we note that initially the assessee filed the objections on 08.11.2021 against draft assessment order dated 29.09.2021. The said objections of the assessee were found to be not maintainable for want of the signatures of the assessee

Sh. Balwinder Singh Kohli, Jalandhar vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

The appeals are disposed off in the manner discussed as above

ITA 87/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Sh . Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe

Section 143Section 153DSection 3

F.No. Addl. CIT/CR/JAL/153D/14–15/1944 dated 20.03.2015 as above. 6 I.T.A. No. 87 & 266/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 6. In the present case, the draft assessment orders in 3 cases, i.e. for 5 assessment years were sent by the AO vide letter No. DCIT/CC- II/JAL/2014-15/2190, dated 20.03.2015 which was placed before ... each assessment year" is to be obtained by 7 I.T.A. No. 87 & 266/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 the Assessing Officer on the draft assessment order before passing the assessment orders under section 153A. 19. In the instant case, the draft assessment orders in 123 cases, i.e. for 123 assessment years

Sh. Darshan Pal Singh Grewal, Ludhiana vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle-II, Jalandhar

The appeals are disposed off in the manner discussed as above

ITA 266/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Sh . Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe

Section 143Section 153DSection 3

M/S Greatship (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm.of Income Tax 5(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2422/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Greatship (India) Vs. Assistant Commissioner Ltd., C/O, Kalyaniwalla Of Income Tax -5(1)(1) Mistry Llp, Esplanade Room No. 568, Aayakar House, 29, Hazarimal Bhavan, M.K. Road, Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcg8542K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: M.M. Golvala &For Respondent: Asif Karmali

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 928Section 92C

assessee has filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel against the addition disallowances proposed by the assessing officer in the draft assessment order. The Dispute Resolution Panel issued directions u/s 144C(5) of the Act on 12.06.2022. The ld. DRP has rejected both the objections filed by the assessee against ... aforesaid two addition disallowance proposed by the assessing officer in the draft assessment order. Thereafter the assessing officer has passed final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act on 31.07.2022 and assessed the total income of the assessee at P a g e | 4 M/s Greatship

Star India Pvt. Ltd. (Sucessor of Star Sports India Pvt. Ltd.- (Ssipl), Mumbai vs. ACIT 16 (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above and Ground

ITA 657/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S Star India Pvt. Ltd. A C I T (Successor Of Star Sports India -16(1) Pvt. Ltd.) Room No. 439, Star House, Urmi Estate Vs. Aayakar Bhavan 95, Ganpantrao Kadam Marg M.K. Road, Lower Parel (W) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aaacn1335Q Appellant Respondent Co No. 114/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) A C I T -16(1) M/S Star India Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 439, Aayakar Bhavan (Successor Of Star Sports India M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Star House, Urmi Estate 95, Ganpantrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel (W) Mumbai 400013 Cross Objector Appellant In Appeal Assessee By: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr Advocate Revenue By: Shri Biswanath Das –Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.06.2023 O R D E R Per: Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 01. Assessee Has Filed Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Acit-16(1), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, SR AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das –CIT-DR

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

approach CBDT u/s 119 (2) of The Act. 03. The learned AO is aggrieved with the directions of the LD DRP holding the draft Assessment order passed as void ab initio and so is in Appeal by cross Objection. 04. Brief facts of the case shows that the assessee ... During T P Assessment, assessee stated umpteen times about the fact of amalgamation by submitting all the details. Accordingly the draft assessment order was passed on 26/12/2017 by the AO at a total income of Rs.78,07,892,780/- in the name of Star Sports India Pvt Limited, despite complete

Fujitsu Consulting India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for

ITA 931/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anshuman Patnaik, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

grossly erred in upholding addition pertaining to interest on outstanding receivables made by the Learned AO to returned income of the Appellant vide draft assessment order dated 19 December 2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Act. 2 ITA No.931/Del./2021 Each of the ground is referred to separately ... unsecured loan to the Associated Enterprises ("AEs"). Accordingly, the AO/ TPO determined transfer pricing adjustment of INR 5,54,066 in the draft assessment order dated 19th December 2019. 4 ITA No.931/Del./2021 Aggrieved by the draft assessment order dated 19th December, 3.1 2019, the assessee filed its objections before

Dassault Systems India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addi. CIT, Special Range- 3, New Delhi

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

ITA 8469/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 92D

account of variation to the arm's length price ("ALP") of international transactions. The AO completed the assessment proceedings and passed the draft assessment order under section 144C (1) of the Act dated December 19, 2017. The AO passed the final assessment order dated February 15, 2018 under section ... read with section 92CA (3) of the Act confirming the addition made in draft assessment order. The assessee’s business is segregated into the following three operating segments from transfer pricing standpoint :- (i) Trading of software; (ii) Provision of business support services; and (iii) Provision of software related professional services

Maersk Logistics & Services International B.V, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed

ITA 937/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.909 & 937/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2020-21)

For Appellant: Manish KanthFor Respondent: Chandip Singh

Section 144CSection 148Section 234BSection 270A(2)

treated as fees for technical services/royalties by the assessing officer. 5. The assesse filed objection before the ld. DRP against the draft assessment order dated 27.03.2022. The DRP vide direction u/s 144C(5) dated 28.12.2022 rejected objections filed by the assesse and stated that they are of the opinion that

Maersk Logistics & Services International B.V., Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed

ITA 909/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.909 & 937/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2020-21)

For Appellant: Manish KanthFor Respondent: Chandip Singh

Section 144CSection 148Section 234BSection 270A(2)

Factiva Ltd. C/O. Price Waterhouse & Co. Lltp, Mumbai vs. Dy.Comm of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1505/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.1504 & 1505/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Hirali Desai &For Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(2)Section 195Section 270ASection 274Section 9(1)(vi)

product and the payment received by the assesse cannot be treated as consideration for the transfer of any copyright. 4. In the draft assessment order the AO after detailed analysis held that the payment made by the DJCIPL and KPMG to the assssee was in the nature of royalty ... nature, the DRP-1 Mumbai had confirmed the findings of the AO in the all the aforesaid assessment years. Therefore, in the draft assessment order the AO has considered the payment from DJCIPL (Rs.6,06,31,835/-) and Rs.25,660/- from KPMG totalling to Rs.608,88,436/ as royalty income

Factiva Ltd. C/O. Price Waterhouse & Co. Lltp, Mumbai vs. Dy.Comm of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1504/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.1504 & 1505/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Hirali Desai &For Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(2)Section 195Section 270ASection 274Section 9(1)(vi)

Ppg Coating India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2168/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. (Tp) No.2168/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ppg Coatings India Pvt. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-13(1)(1) Ltd. Mumbai Vs. (Now Merged With Ppg Asian Paints Pvt. Ltd.) The Centrium Phoenix Market City, Lbs, Marg, Kurla West, Mumbai- 400070. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs4378K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala Revenue By: Shri Samuel Pitta (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 25.01.2017 Pursuant To Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp)-02, Mumbai Passed 27.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Senior Counsel For The Assessee Drew Our Attention To The Additional Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Which According To Him Is A Legal Issue & Which Need To Be Adjudicated First, Since If The Legal Issue Is Upheld Then, It Goes To The Root Of The Jurisdiction Of The Ao To Have Passed The Final Assessment Order. The Legal Issue Raised By Assessee Reads As Under;-

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Coatings India Pvt. Ltd. “1:0 Re: Validity of the order 1: 1 The appellant submits that the draft assessment order (and the consequent final assessment order) passed by the Assessing Officer is ab-initio void since the impugned order(s) per se have been passed in the name ... w.e.f. 18.09.2012). Even though, the aforesaid information regarding merger was brought to the notice of the AO/TPO/Ld. DRP, the AO passed the draft assessment order dated 23.03.2016 as well as the final assessment order dated 25.01.2017 in the name of non-existing entity ‘M/s. PPG Coating India

Aglient Technologies (International) Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6727/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Agilent Technologies Vs. Dcit, (International) Private Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No. Cp-11, Sector-8, Gurgaon Imt Manesar, Gurgaon Pan :Aadca4115C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

proposed as transfer pricing adjustment to the price shown by the assessee. The adjustment proposed by the TPO was incorporated in the draft assessment order. Against draft assessment order, assessee raised objections before learned DRP. After considering the submission of the assessee, learned DRP excluded certain comparables selected

Micro Focus Software Inc. (Formerly Known As Novell Inc.), Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT (Intl. Taxation)-Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 891/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

income of the Indian subsidiary as per the activities carried out as per the Distribution Agreement. The Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide draft assessment order dated 22/03/2022, treated the Indian subsidiary, i.e. Micro Focus India Private Ltd, as Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment (“DAPE”) of the assessee in India ... taxable in India, since the transaction between the assessee and Indian subsidiary is on arm’s length basis. The AO, vide draft assessment order, did not agree with the submissions of the assessee on the basis that the BAPA is not binding on the assessment of the assessee