← 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

Teleperformance Global Services Pvt Ltd (M/S Serco Bpo Pvt. Ltd )., Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly 15. In result the appeal of both AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 2815/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C

length price of the international transactions. The TPO made a TP adjustment of Rs.7,90,77,518. The AO passed a draft assessment order date 30.09.2021 in which the AO retained the disallowances made u/s. 143(1) Rs.6,05,18,177 and besides the TP adjustment the AO further made ... towards depreciation on goodwill and also disallowed the unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.1,45,93,19,199. The assessed income as per the draft assessment order was Rs.2,30,76,81,305. Aggrieved the assessee filed its objections before the DRP. The DRP gave partial relief towards the adjustment made

Teleperformance Global Services Pvt Ltd (M/S Serco Bpo Pvt. Ltd )., Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly 15. In result the appeal of both AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 2814/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C

length price of the international transactions. The TPO made a TP adjustment of Rs.7,90,77,518. The AO passed a draft assessment order date 30.09.2021 in which the AO retained the disallowances made u/s. 143(1) Rs.6,05,18,177 and besides the TP adjustment the AO further made ... towards depreciation on goodwill and also disallowed the unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.1,45,93,19,199. The assessed income as per the draft assessment order was Rs.2,30,76,81,305. Aggrieved the assessee filed its objections before the DRP. The DRP gave partial relief towards the adjustment made

Tranztar Commercial Vehicle Applications Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 14 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6624/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40ASection 92BSection 92C

passed an order under section 92CA whereby he proposed an adjustment of Rs.1,76,27,371/-. The Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order incorporating the TP adjustment against which the assessee filed its objections before the DRP. The Ld.DRP reduced the TP adjustment to Rs.29,10,942/-. The assessee

Lord India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee and quash the assessment order

ITA 424/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhaillord India Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Limited (F Ormer Ly Know N A S L Ord Of Income-Tax, Circle- India C Hem Ica L Pr Od Uct S Pv T. Lt D. ) 10(2)(1), Room No. 509, A/401-404, 215 – Atrium Aayakar Bhavan, Chakala, Andheri – Kurla M.K. Road, Road Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400093 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0785H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : M.P. Lohia Respondent By : Dr. Samual Pitta Date Of Hearing 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Drp-1, Mumbai Dated 26.02.2015 For A.Y. 2011- 12. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Transfer Pricing - Availing Of Intra-Group Services 1.1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Acit/ Drp Erred In Determining The Arm'S Length Price In Relation To The International Transaction Relating To The Availing Of Group Benefit Services/ Technical Service Management Services (Hereinafter Referred To As "Intra-Group Services") Of Rs.1,14,87,092 To Be Rs. 22,97,418/-, Thus Making An Adjustment Of Rs.91,89,674/- & Thereby Disregarding The Fact That The Appellant Had Received The Services For The Purposes Of Its Business. In Doing So, The Learned Acit/ Drp Grossly Erred By Not Appreciating The Commercial Wisdom/ Expediency Of The Appellant

For Appellant: M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Dr. Samual Pitta
Section 40

Rs.91,89,674/- in the arm’s length price of its international transaction with respect to technical services. Thereafter the A.O has passed draft assessment order on 26.02.2015 after making disallowance of Rs.91,89,674/- u/s 92CA(3) on account of adjustment in arm’s length price of international transaction ... mismatch of 26AS. The total income was assessed at Rs.26,98,35,560/-. 3. Thereafter the assessee has filed objection against the draft assessment order before the Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai. The DRP vide direction u/s 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 16.10.2015 has upheld

Godawari Power and Ispat Ltd., Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, National Informatics Center, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 80Section 80ISection 92BSection 92C

dated 30/01/2021, a sum of Rs. 49,52,68,006/- was proposed to be added to the income of the assessee in the draft assessment order. In response to the same, the assessee filed objections before Ld DRP against the draft assessment order framed by the AO u/s 144C

Bridgestone India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assl/Jt/Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National E-Assessment Centre Delh, Delhi

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

ITA 1081/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Bridgestone India P.Ltd Plot No-A-43, Phase-Ii, Midc Addl/Jt/Dy/Cit/Ito, National E- Chakan, Village Sawardari, Assessment Centre Vs. Taluka Khed, Delhi-110 003 Pune-410501 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabcb2304E Assessee By : Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Adv Revenue By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2023

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 144BSection 144CSection 42(1)Section 43(1)

lesser depreciation claimed by the assessee and made an addition of ₹ 470,341,836 as income of the assessee. The draft assessment order was passed on 11/12/2019. On objection before the learned dispute resolution panel, the directions were given that in assessment year 2015 – 16 the learned dispute resolution panel ... made to the total income of the assessee in the said order passed by the TPO. The draft assessment order under Section 14393) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 18.12.2018. Thereafter, the assessee objected to the draft assessment order before Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under

Gebr.Pfeiffer Se, Germany vs. CIT(Drp-1), Mumbai 3, Mumbai

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

ITA 54/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhgebr Pfeiffer Se Vs. Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Barbarossastr 50-54, 1711, 17Th Floor, Air Kaiserlautern, Germany India Building, 676550 Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecg9980A Appellant .. Respondent Gebr Pfeiffer Se Vs. Cit(Drp-1) Barbarossastr 50-54, Income Tax Department Kaiserlautern, Germany Mumbai -3 676550 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecg9980A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Salil Aggarwal &For Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash

treated the same as under reporting of income of Rs,1,31,81,590/-. Accordingly, the A.O has passed the draft assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C of the Act on 17.12.2019. P a g e | 6 ITA No.1507/Mum/2021 & 54/Mum/2022 GEBR PFEIFFER Se Vs. ACIT, Circle ... Against the draft assessment order the assessee has raised the objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The ground of object raised by the assessee are as under: “3. The addition proposed by the Learned Assessing Officer (The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai) vide

Gebr.Pfeiffer Se, Germany vs. ACIT Circle 2(3)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai

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

ITA 1507/MUM/2021[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhgebr Pfeiffer Se Vs. Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Barbarossastr 50-54, 1711, 17Th Floor, Air Kaiserlautern, Germany India Building, 676550 Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecg9980A Appellant .. Respondent Gebr Pfeiffer Se Vs. Cit(Drp-1) Barbarossastr 50-54, Income Tax Department Kaiserlautern, Germany Mumbai -3 676550 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecg9980A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Salil Aggarwal &For Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash

treated the same as under reporting of income of Rs,1,31,81,590/-. Accordingly, the A.O has passed the draft assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C of the Act on 17.12.2019. P a g e | 6 ITA No.1507/Mum/2021 & 54/Mum/2022 GEBR PFEIFFER Se Vs. ACIT, Circle ... Against the draft assessment order the assessee has raised the objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The ground of object raised by the assessee are as under: “3. The addition proposed by the Learned Assessing Officer (The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai) vide

Omni Active Health Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asst/CIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

ITA 748/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 35Section 5Section 92C

passed under Section 5. 92CA of the Act, proposed upwards transfer pricing adjustment of INR 16,59,51,699/- which incorporated in the Draft Assessment Order dated 22/04/2021, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B and 144C(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also proposed disallowance ... normal provisions of the Act, as well as for the purpose of computing Book Profits under Section 115JB of the Act. Against the Draft Assessment Order, the Appellant filed objections 6. which were disposed off by the DRP on 28/01/2022 (as having been partly allowed), and pursuant to the same

Fcc Co. Ltd, Japan vs. ACIT, Circle 1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 766/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

amount of Rs.3,05,82,364 in India by treating it as business income applying tax rate of 40%. 6. Against the draft assessment order so passed, the assessee raised objections before learned DRP. Though, learned DRP was conscious of the fact that in assessment years

Tpf Getinsa Eurostudios S.L, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on all the grounds is allowed

ITA 2400/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 2400/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Tpf Getinsa Euroestudios S.L., Vs Acit, Unit-305, Suncity Business International Taxation, Tower, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Sector-54, Gurgaon-122002 Haryana-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecg9819Q

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Anshuman Pattnaik, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

course of assessment proceedings. During the course of assessment proceedings, no specific query raised by AO to furnish vouchers. After receipt of the draft Assessment Order disallowing 10% of the expenses on ad-hoc basis, the evidences of expenses have been furnished before the ld. DRP under Rule ... action of disallowance of payment to Eurostudios discussed supra, the captioned amount of Rs.2,18,66,000/- was also disallowed, in the draft assessment order, for want of details of said expenditure and requirement of TDS, which were otherwise part of assessment record. • In the proceedings before DRP, the assessee

DCIT Central Circle-8, New Delhi vs. Amolak Singh Bhatia, Bilaspur

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed as above and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 721/DEL/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2023AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 153B(1)(a)Section 153D

Amolak Singh Bhatia Group, Bilaspur – Regarding. Please refer to your letter in F.No.ACIT (CC)/BSP/153D/2018-19 dated 08.02.2019. 2. The draft assessment orders u/s 153A and 143 (3) in the following cases submitted vide above mentioned letter are hereby approved u/s 153D of the I.T. Act – S.No. Name of the assessee ... under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) is null and void. 1. In the present case, the Ld. Assessing Officer. Bilaspur, has sent the draft assessment order in the case of 7 assessees from Bilaspur to the office of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Central, Raipur, (hereinafter referred

DCIT Central Circle-8, New Delhi vs. Amolak Singh Bhatia, Bilaspur

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed as above and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 720/DEL/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2023AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 153B(1)(a)Section 153D

Amolak Singh Bhatia Group, Bilaspur – Regarding. Please refer to your letter in F.No.ACIT (CC)/BSP/153D/2018-19 dated 08.02.2019. 2. The draft assessment orders u/s 153A and 143 (3) in the following cases submitted vide above mentioned letter are hereby approved u/s 153D of the I.T. Act – S.No. Name of the assessee ... under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) is null and void. 1. In the present case, the Ld. Assessing Officer. Bilaspur, has sent the draft assessment order in the case of 7 assessees from Bilaspur to the office of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Central, Raipur, (hereinafter referred

DCIT Central Circle-8, New Delhi vs. Amolak Singh Bhatia, Bilaspur

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed as above and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 719/DEL/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2023AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 153B(1)(a)Section 153D

Amolak Singh Bhatia Group, Bilaspur – Regarding. Please refer to your letter in F.No.ACIT (CC)/BSP/153D/2018-19 dated 08.02.2019. 2. The draft assessment orders u/s 153A and 143 (3) in the following cases submitted vide above mentioned letter are hereby approved u/s 153D of the I.T. Act – S.No. Name of the assessee ... under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) is null and void. 1. In the present case, the Ld. Assessing Officer. Bilaspur, has sent the draft assessment order in the case of 7 assessees from Bilaspur to the office of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Central, Raipur, (hereinafter referred

DCIT Central Circle-8, New Delhi vs. Amolak Singh Bhatia, Bilaspur

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed as above and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 718/DEL/2021[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2023AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 153B(1)(a)Section 153D

Amolak Singh Bhatia Group, Bilaspur – Regarding. Please refer to your letter in F.No.ACIT (CC)/BSP/153D/2018-19 dated 08.02.2019. 2. The draft assessment orders u/s 153A and 143 (3) in the following cases submitted vide above mentioned letter are hereby approved u/s 153D of the I.T. Act – S.No. Name of the assessee ... under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) is null and void. 1. In the present case, the Ld. Assessing Officer. Bilaspur, has sent the draft assessment order in the case of 7 assessees from Bilaspur to the office of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Central, Raipur, (hereinafter referred

DCIT Central Circle-8, New Delhi vs. Amolak Singh Bhatia, Bilaspur

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed as above and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 717/DEL/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2023AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 153B(1)(a)Section 153D

Amolak Singh Bhatia Group, Bilaspur – Regarding. Please refer to your letter in F.No.ACIT (CC)/BSP/153D/2018-19 dated 08.02.2019. 2. The draft assessment orders u/s 153A and 143 (3) in the following cases submitted vide above mentioned letter are hereby approved u/s 153D of the I.T. Act – S.No. Name of the assessee ... under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) is null and void. 1. In the present case, the Ld. Assessing Officer. Bilaspur, has sent the draft assessment order in the case of 7 assessees from Bilaspur to the office of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Central, Raipur, (hereinafter referred

Macrotech Developers Ltd.(Successor to Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2266/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 928Section 92B

adjustment. The learned Assessing Officer ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 incorporated the above adjustment in the draft assessment order. 08. The learned Assessing Officer made following corporate adjustments:- i. Though assessee has not received any dividend income during the year, however, there ... 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 ₹10,22,402/- at ₹107,19,96,962/-. Accordingly, the draft assessment order was passed on 25 September 2021. 010. Assessee preferred the objections before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel, who passed its direction on 29 June 2022. The learned Dispute

Macrotech Developrs Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2239/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 928Section 92B

adjustment. The learned Assessing Officer ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 incorporated the above adjustment in the draft assessment order. 08. The learned Assessing Officer made following corporate adjustments:- i. Though assessee has not received any dividend income during the year, however, there ... 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 ₹10,22,402/- at ₹107,19,96,962/-. Accordingly, the draft assessment order was passed on 25 September 2021. 010. Assessee preferred the objections before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel, who passed its direction on 29 June 2022. The learned Dispute

Uk Grid Solution Ltd, United Kingdom vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2088/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 2088/Del/2022, A.Y. 2019-20 Uk Grid Solution Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of St. Loeonards Building, Harry Income Tax Kerr Drive, Circle- 3(1)(1), Stafford, St16 1Wt, International Taxation United Kingdom New Delhi Pan : Aaica6271A

Section 143(3)Section 90(2)

India. Ld. AO also considered the global operation fee as FTS. 5. The assessee approached the Ld. DRP which had sustained the draft assessment order except to the extent directing Ld. AO to exclude the receipts on account of off-shore supplies made by assessee ... they are not related to the PGCIL contract, which is the basis of addition in the draft assessment order, be deleted. Ld. AO in para 20 of final assessment order observed as follows :- “20. In view of the directions of the Hon’ble DRP the receipts from

Gayatri Kapur Chadda, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2286/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

deduction claimed towards cost of acquisition and cost of improvement. Accordingly, the income was determined at Rs.6,04,50,465. Against the draft assessment order so passed, the assessee raised objections before learned DRP. Though, detailed submissions were made contesting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, however, learned ... accepted the capital gain offered after claiming deduction on account of cost of acquisition and cost of improvement. However, while framing the draft assessment order in case of the wife i.e. the present assessee, though, the capital gain arose out of the same transaction, however, the same Assessing Officer disallowed