← 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

Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer vs. CIT(Exemption)/ ITO (Exemption), Jaipur / Jodhpur

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 89/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

original assessment proceeding, certainly, cannot be considered in the reassessment proceeding. In the facts of the present case, a perusal of the draft assessment order as well as the final assessment order passed under s. 143(3) r/w s. 144C(13) would make it clear that the issue relating ... original assessment order would reveal that the issue relating to deduction claimed under s. 80IA was a subject-matter therein. In fact, the draft assessment order passed by the AO on the issue of deduction claimed under s. 801A of the Act was disputed before learned DRP and after passing

Inter Globle Aviation Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2539/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhryinter Globle Aviation Ltd. Vs. Acit Upper Ground Floor, Circle – 10(1) Westren Wing, Thapper New Delhi House-124, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 Pan No. Aabci 2726 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Soumya Jain, Adv. Revenue By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.09.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) - Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :- Inter Globle Aviation Ltd Vs Acit 2 3. Assessee Is A Company Stated To Be Engaged In The Business Of Operation Of Airlines Under The Name & Style Of Indigo. Assessee Electronically Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2018-19 On 30.11.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.18,26,11,80,910/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Thereafter Assessment Was Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Act Vide Order Dated 19.04.2021 & The Total Income Was Determined At Rs.24,31,89,53,536/-.

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 271D

erred in not appreciating that the assessment order was illegal and bad in law since the same was passed without issuing any draft assessment order or show cause notice for the variations proposed to be made to the returned income, which is in gross violation of provisions of Section 144B

Constructora Sanjose Sa, Haryana vs. DCIT/ACIT-Int-Tax, Haryana

ITA 582/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaconstructora Sanjose Sa, Vs. Dcit/ Acit-Int-Tax, Unit No. 602, Global Foywer Haryana Building Gold Course Road, Gurgaon -122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcc6553Q

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234A

report from the ld AO and there upon the Ld. Panel was not satisfied with the response and refused to interfere with the draft assessment order. 4. The assessee is in appeal raising following grounds:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the final assessment order passed ... remand proceedings the ld AO had called for specific replies which was not furnished and the ld DRP has accordingly sustained the draft assessment order. 13. Appreciating the matter on record it can be observed that the ld AO has fundamentally passed the draft assessment order on account of being

Gvk Power and Infrastructure Limited, Jegurupadu vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 93/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

loans Total 121,95,92,054 3. Considering the Transfer pricing upward adjustments made by the Ld. TPO, the Ld.AO passed a draft assessment order dated 15/4/2021. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee filed its objections before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru [DRP]. Considering the objections

Vetco Gray Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1) Int. Tax., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1799/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44B

income from offshore supply at Rs.18,08,04,057/- which was brought to tax by applying the rate of 40%. 5. Against the draft assessment order so proposed the assessee raised objections before learned DRP. Though, before learned DRP, the assessee made detailed submissions to the effect that there ... find merit in the submissions of the assessee. Ultimately, learned DRP upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the draft assessment order on the disputed issue was finalized. 4 | P a g e AY: 2018-19 6. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the contracts

Dcm Shriram Industries Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1000/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year 2016-17 With Assessment Year 2015-16

Section 133(6)Section 80I

Rs.2.77 per KWH. Applying the aforesaid rate as external CUP (Comparable Uncontrolled Price), the TPO suggested the disputed TP adjustment. While framing the draft assessment order, the Assessing Officer added the TP adjustment. While considering assessee’s objection on the issue, learned DRP taking note of the fact that similar

Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addi. CIT National E - Assesment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 539/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year 2016-17 With Assessment Year 2015-16

Section 133(6)Section 80I

Rs.2.77 per KWH. Applying the aforesaid rate as external CUP (Comparable Uncontrolled Price), the TPO suggested the disputed TP adjustment. While framing the draft assessment order, the Assessing Officer added the TP adjustment. While considering assessee’s objection on the issue, learned DRP taking note of the fact that similar

Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addi. CIT Special Range-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1841/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year 2016-17 With Assessment Year 2015-16

Section 133(6)Section 80I

Rs.2.77 per KWH. Applying the aforesaid rate as external CUP (Comparable Uncontrolled Price), the TPO suggested the disputed TP adjustment. While framing the draft assessment order, the Assessing Officer added the TP adjustment. While considering assessee’s objection on the issue, learned DRP taking note of the fact that similar

Tge Gas Engineering Gmbh, Germany vs. DCIT, Circle Int. Taxation 3(1)(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1958/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Tge Gas Engineering Gmbh, Vs Dcit, Mildred-Scheel-Str., 1 D-53175 Circle-International Bonn, Germany, Germany. Taxation 3(1)(1), Pan-Aadct7387B Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.K.Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Gangadhar Panda, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 14.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018- 19 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), International Taxation 3(1)(1), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 28.07.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 270A

vide e-filing acknowledgement number 286346921070918, declaring loss of Rs. 3,77,110. Refer page no 1- 68 of Paper Book. 3. Draft assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Act: The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 3(1)(1), Delhi ('Ld. AO') issued draft ... r.w.s 144C of the Act vide dated September 28, 2021 (refer page no. 69- 75 of Paper Book for copy of draft assessment order), wherein the following additions/disallowances have been made: Sr. Particulars Amount No 1 Addition of settlement amount received from Indian Oil Rs. Infrastructure & Energy Services

Karimthottuva Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kollam vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Kollam

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

ITA 849/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Karimthottuva Service Vs. The Assessing Officer, Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Ward – 2, No.2594, Kunnathur East, Sasthamkotta, Kollam. Kollam – 690 540. Pan : Aaaak 9696 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Anil D Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr DR
Section 143Section 144BSection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

made which is likely to be prejudicial to the interest of the assessee, the NFAC would have served upon the assessee the draft assessment order. Page 3 of 9 9. The assessment was completed without giving proper opportunity to your appellant. The appellant sought an adjournment

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Vimal Chand Surana(HUF), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 62/JPR/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 139Section 143Section 147Section 150(2)Section 153CSection 2Section 250Section 69

assessee is limited to fully and truly disclosing all the material facts. The assessee is not required thereafter to prepare a draft assessment order. If the details placed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer were in conformity with the requirements of all applicable laws and known accounting principles

Shri Madho Lal Saini, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 238/JPR/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi (CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 54BSection 54FSection 69

assessee is limited to fully and truly disclosing all the material facts. The assessee is not required thereafter to prepare a draft assessment order. If the details placed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer were in conformity with the requirements of all applicable laws and known accounting principles

Inteva Product Natherlands Bv, Maharashtra vs. ACIT Circle Int. Taxation-2(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 822/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 270

active of management and consultancy services. Accordingly, he brought to tax the amount at the hands of the assessee. Against the draft assessment order, assessee raised objections before DRP. However, learned DRP rejected the objection. 6. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the services rendered ... learned DRP. 10. We have considered rival submission and perused the material available on record. 11. As could be seen from the draft assessment order, the Assessing Officer has very clearly and categorically mentioned that assessee’s employees never visited India for rendering any kind of services. Whatever services rendered

Inteva Products Netherlands Bv, Netherland vs. ACIT Circle-Iternational Taxation -2(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 119/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 270

active of management and consultancy services. Accordingly, he brought to tax the amount at the hands of the assessee. Against the draft assessment order, assessee raised objections before DRP. However, learned DRP rejected the objection. 6. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the services rendered ... learned DRP. 10. We have considered rival submission and perused the material available on record. 11. As could be seen from the draft assessment order, the Assessing Officer has very clearly and categorically mentioned that assessee’s employees never visited India for rendering any kind of services. Whatever services rendered

Amadoroco Limited, Nicosai Cyprus vs. ACIT, Int. Tax. 1(1)(1), New Delhi

ITA 784/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.784/Del/2020, A.Y. 2016-17

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

judicial pronouncements on the subject matter in issue wherein the Ld. AO is not required to pass a draft assessment order under section 144C of the Act when there is no variance in the income/loss which is prejudicial to the assessee. (2) Denial of benefit of beneficial ownership as provided ... Counsel opened the arguments submitting that when there is no proposal for variation in the income, Ld. AO was not required to pass draft assessment order u/s 144C of the Act and accordingly it was submitted that the ITA No. 784.Del.2020 Amadoroco Limited 4 assessment order dated

Inteva Products Netherlands Bv, Netherlands vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 7964/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2023AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 270

active of management and consultancy services. Accordingly, he brought to tax the amount at the hands of the assessee. Against the draft assessment order, assessee raised objections before DRP. However, learned DRP rejected the objection. 6. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the services rendered ... learned DRP. 10. We have considered rival submission and perused the material available on record. 11. As could be seen from the draft assessment order, the Assessing Officer has very clearly and categorically mentioned that assessee’s employees never visited India for rendering any kind of services. Whatever services rendered

Inteva Products Netherlands Bv, Netherlands vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 7963/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 270

active of management and consultancy services. Accordingly, he brought to tax the amount at the hands of the assessee. Against the draft assessment order, assessee raised objections before DRP. However, learned DRP rejected the objection. 6. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the services rendered ... learned DRP. 10. We have considered rival submission and perused the material available on record. 11. As could be seen from the draft assessment order, the Assessing Officer has very clearly and categorically mentioned that assessee’s employees never visited India for rendering any kind of services. Whatever services rendered

Addi. CIT, Special Range-1, New Delhi vs. Aon Services India P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 5987/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 271(1)(c)

Rs.1,92,92,020, dispute was agitated before the Tribunal. Be that as it may, based on the additions made in the draft assessment order, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income ... denial of benefit of deduction under Section 10A of the Act, it is observed, though, the aforesaid addition was proposed in the draft assessment order, however, while considering assessee’s objection on the issue, learned 9 ITA Nos.5986 & 5987/Del./2019 Dispute Resolution Panel deleted the addition. In the final assessment

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 1, New Delhi vs. Aon Services India P. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 5986/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 271(1)(c)

Rs.1,92,92,020, dispute was agitated before the Tribunal. Be that as it may, based on the additions made in the draft assessment order, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income ... denial of benefit of deduction under Section 10A of the Act, it is observed, though, the aforesaid addition was proposed in the draft assessment order, however, while considering assessee’s objection on the issue, learned 9 ITA Nos.5986 & 5987/Del./2019 Dispute Resolution Panel deleted the addition. In the final assessment

Ladakh Roadlines, Srinagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 101/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250Section 282

that the assessment order U/s 144 dt.26/10/2017 is illegal in view of inadequate or no opportunity provided to the appellant & non-service of draft assessment order upon the appellant before its passing. 3. In placing undue reliance on assumptions & presumptions on the basis of which the notices issued have been