“draft assessment order”

Asus India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-9(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.7147/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Asus India Private Ito Ward- 9(1) (4), Limited. Mumbai. 402, Supreme Chamber, बनाम/ Veera Desai Road, Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai-400 053. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Aajca 6450C (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथी की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Dhanesh Bafna, Pratik Shah, Ms. Tejal Saraf, Ms. Riddhi M Maru Shri Anoop Hiwase (Sr. Dr) प्रत्यथी की ओरसे/Respondent By : सुनवधई की तधरीख/ 21.03.2023 : Date Of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 14.06.2023 : Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi: 1) This Appeal Is Filed By Asus India Private Limited [Assessee/ Appellant] Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 144C (13) R.W.S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 On 26Th October, 2017 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2 I.T.A. No. 7147/Mum/2017 Asus India Private Limited Vs. Ito

upward adjustment to the international transaction of Marketing Service Fees amounting to Rs.3,51,53,636/-. The Ld. Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order on 27/12/2016 wherein the 3 I.T.A. No. 7147/Mum/2017 Asus India Private Limited vs. ITO total income of the assessee was determined at Rs.10 ... against the return of income of Rs.13,10,200/- wherein several additions disallowances were made in the normal computation also. 5) Against this draft assessment order, the assessee preferred an objection before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Penal-1 (WZ), Mumbai, (DRP). The DRP passed direction on 22/09/2017. 6) Consequently

Shabbir Rajabali Vakil, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Ward 4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshabbir Rajabali Vakil Vs. Ito (Int. Tax) Ward 701, Silver View, 4(3)(1), Room No. 1625, Chimbai Road, Bandra 16Th Floor, Air India West, Mumbai – 400050 Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Abvpv6524C Appellant .. Respondent

case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021. The draft assessment order u/s 144C r.w.s 147 of the Act was passed on 27.03.0222 proposing assessment of the total income at Rs.34,10,690/- after adding Rs.14,14,000/- being ... Therefore, the AO treated the difference of Rs.14,14,000/- as income u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act as per the draft assessment order passed on 27.03.2022. 3. The assessee filed objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The Dispute Resolution Panel has dismissed the objection filed

Johnson &Johnson P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT/ACIT/Jt/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

learned Assessing Officer incorporating the above adjustment of transfer pricing and also making several other additions, passed the draft assessment order on 23rd March, 2015, determining the total income of the assessee as per normal computation of ₹636,23,59,083/-. The assessee preferred the objections before the learned Dispute ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in issuing the draft assessment order dated 23 March 2015 as per provisions of Section 144C of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the transfer pricing order being passed on 30 January

ACIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai vs. Johnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd.(Frmerly Known As Johnson & Johnson Ltd.), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

learned Assessing Officer incorporating the above adjustment of transfer pricing and also making several other additions, passed the draft assessment order on 23rd March, 2015, determining the total income of the assessee as per normal computation of ₹636,23,59,083/-. The assessee preferred the objections before the learned Dispute ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in issuing the draft assessment order dated 23 March 2015 as per provisions of Section 144C of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the transfer pricing order being passed on 30 January

Johnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - Ltu-1, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

learned Assessing Officer incorporating the above adjustment of transfer pricing and also making several other additions, passed the draft assessment order on 23rd March, 2015, determining the total income of the assessee as per normal computation of ₹636,23,59,083/-. The assessee preferred the objections before the learned Dispute ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in issuing the draft assessment order dated 23 March 2015 as per provisions of Section 144C of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the transfer pricing order being passed on 30 January

Smit Singapore Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Int Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

taxable under section 44BB of the Act and hence is excluded from the definition of Royalty. 6. The Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide draft assessment order, dated 24/03/2022 passed under section 144C of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the pith and substance ... agreement between the assessee and BOC Smit Singapore Pte. Ltd. ITA no.816/Mum./2023 BV, as quoted on page no.2 of the draft assessment order, to support the submission that the charterer has the option of making structural alterations to the vessel and therefore, the charterer has specific control upon

Jungheinrich Lift Truck India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Jungheinrich Lift Truck India Asst. Commissioner Of Income Private Limited 203 204, 2 N D Floor Tax Vs. Delphi A Wing, Central Avenue, Circle 15(2)(2) Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai Mumbai-400 076 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccj7808G

year and opening reversal of ₹ 6,963,346/– under section 43AA of the act. 08. Accordingly the draft assessment order under section 144C of the act was passed on 29/9/2021 wherein in the normal computation of income the learned assessing officer made an adjustment proposed by the learned transfer pricing

Marriott International Inc., Mumbai vs. Dy, CIT (International Tax) 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1784/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व.2010-11) Marriott International Inc C/O.Marriott Hotels India Private Limited 303A, 304, Fulcrum, B Wing, Hiranandani Business Park, Sahar Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai 400 099 Pan: Aaecm-8040-K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Tax)-3(2)(1), Mumbai, 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point,Mumbai 400 007. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Paras Savla & Pratik Poddar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/05/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2023

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order dated December, 31, 2019 passed by the assessing officer without passing draft assessment order, is bad in law and void ab initio as the same has been passed in violation of section 144C of the Income ... pursuance to 3 the direction of CIT(A) vide order dated 30/11/2015 passed the final assessment order on 29/12/2016 without passing the draft assessment order. Against the said assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) affirmed the findings of Assessing Officer vide order dated