← 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

Veolia India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 26(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6011/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Sh. Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2013-14 Veolia India Pvt Ltd. Acit B-1, Marble Arch, 9, Prithvi Vs Circle – 26 (1) Raj Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aabcv7389R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 92Section 92B

accordingly suggested an adjustment of Rs.9,21,270/-. The adjustment so proposed was added to the income of the assessee in the draft assessment order. Against the draft assessment order the assessee raised objections before DRP. However, Learned DRP upheld the adjustment. 5. Before us, the Ld. Counsel appearing ... completed, time required to complete, past experience of costs already incurred, customer expectations, scope changes and other relevant factors. While framing the draft assessment order the AO rejected the accounting method of the assessee and proceeded to determine the revenue from contract by reducing the gross profit based

Fil India Business & Research Services P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Dc, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1358/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargfil India Business & Vs. Dc Research Services P. Ltd., Circle – 7(1) Private Studio – New Delhi Ncr/Ac/Ps/00/010B, Ground Floor, Worldmark 1, Asset Area 11, Aerocity, Hospitality District, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi-110 002 Pan : Aabcf 1572 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. M. Gupta, Adv. Shri Rishabh Malhotra, A.R. & Shri Bhavya Gupta, C.A. Revenue By Shri Amaresh Singh, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

92CA(3) dated 29.07.2021 proposed an adjustment of Rs.1,58,97,397/- to the International Transactions entered into by the assessee. Thereafter, a draft assessment order was passed u/s 144C of the Act vide order dated 22.09.2021 wherein the total assessable income was determined at Rs.97 ... file its objection, if any, to such variation with the DRP and AO. Assessee filed its objection to the draft assessment order before DRP. DRP vide directions issued u/s 144C(5) of the Act dated 29.03.2022 directed the AO to complete the assessment as per the directions contained

Travelport International Operations Limited, Berkshire vs. ACIT Circle-3(1)(1) International Taxation-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1567/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

brought to tax, such profits attributed to the PE applying the rate of 40%. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer proposed draft assessment orders in similar lines in both the assessment years under dispute. Against the draft assessment orders so proposed, the assessee raised objections before learned DRP. After considering the submissions ... raised the issue of attribution of profit to PE at 25% of the total turnover. 14. As discussed earlier, while framing the draft assessment orders, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee is not entitled to avail any benefit under India-UK DTAA. Further, he held that

Travelport International Operations Limited, Berkshire vs. ACIT Circle-3(1)(1), International Taxation-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1566/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

brought to tax, such profits attributed to the PE applying the rate of 40%. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer proposed draft assessment orders in similar lines in both the assessment years under dispute. Against the draft assessment orders so proposed, the assessee raised objections before learned DRP. After considering the submissions ... raised the issue of attribution of profit to PE at 25% of the total turnover. 14. As discussed earlier, while framing the draft assessment orders, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee is not entitled to avail any benefit under India-UK DTAA. Further, he held that

Xerox India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2014/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92F

being made while computing the income of the assessee for the year under consideration. 4. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Dispute Resolution Panel (for short ‘DRP’). The DRP vide order dated 15/12/2016 directed the A.O/TPO to complete the assessment as per the directions

DCIT (International Taxation), Gurgaon vs. M/S. Aecom Asia Company Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2734/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 44D

taxed @ 40%. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(l)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of this income is initiated. 9. A draft assessment order on the above lines was passed on 11-03-2015 and forwarded to the assessee on 16.03.2015. The assessee has not submitted any reply regarding filing of objection

Nan Lion Ship Management Llc, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) -3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1857/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1857/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Acit (Int. Tax) – 3(3)(1), Nan Lian Ship Management 1630, 16Th Floor, Air India Llc Building Nariman Point, C/O- Chamber 2 & 3, Cosmos बिधम/ Mumbai-400 021 Trade Place, Ground Floor, Vs. Khatu Building, Opp-Bse, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagcn0478E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Nishit Gandhi /Dhanlaxmi Iyer, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Das, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.11.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27.05.2022, Passed By Ld. Ao U/S 2

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Das
Section 144C(5)Section 2Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

draft order of the AO after observing as under:- 4 I.T.A. No. 1857/Mum/2022 Nan Lian Ship Management LLC 5. We have perused the draft assessment order. We have also considered the written and oral submissions of the assessee. The fact of the matter is that the assessee

M/S. Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2582/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana

Rs.3,10,32,759/- by using 6 Month LIBOR rate computed at 4.6386%. 2.12. On receipt of the order passed by the Ld.TPO, draft assessment order dated 26/12/2018 was passed by the Ld.AO in which the aforesaid TP adjustment was incorporated. The Ld.AO further recomputed the total income

The Byke Hospitality Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm of Income Tax, Circle -2(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1954/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Byke Hospitality Ltd., National Faceless Appeal 156-158 Chakravarty Ashok Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Complex, Mumbai, Sahar P & T Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(2)(1), Colony S.O., Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400099. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaack 2113 R Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Ms. Shivangi Chopara, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ashish Heliwal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Ms. Shivangi Chopara, AR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 274

completed as per the draft assessment should not be completed as per the draft assessment should not be completed as per the draft assessment order. The reply of the assessee made on assessment order. The reply of the assessee made on assessment order. The reply of the assessee made

Edenred Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm of Income Tax International Taxation-2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1562/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vi)

aforesaid receipt as not taxable in India under Article 12 of the India Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA‟). The AO vide draft assessment order dated 15/09/2021 passed under section 143(3) of the Act treated the aforesaid receipts on account of Infrastructure Data Centre (‘IDC‟) charges, referral fees ... were received from its group companies, namely, Edenred (India) Private Ltd, Accentiv (India) Private Ltd (erstwhile SurfGold.com (India) Private Ltd). The AO vide draft assessment order following the directions issued by the learned DRP in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2017–18 treated the aforesaid income

Unilever Industries Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Range 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 1015/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleunilever Industries Pvt Vs. Acit, Range – 1(3)(1) Ltd., Room No 504, 5 Floor, Unilever House, Bd Aayakar Bhavan, Sawant Marg, Chakala, M.K.Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai -400099. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu0791P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala & Mr.Hiten Chande.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Jayant Jhaveri.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) & U/Sec144C(13) R.W.S 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Order U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 26.02.2021.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal. Unilever Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. General: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao/ Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Transfer Pricing) -4(2)(2) ("Tpo") Subsequent To The Directions Issued By The Hon'Ble Drp Has Erred In Assessing The Total Income At Rs. 152,67,16,425 As Against Returned Income Of Rs. 116,80,08,280 Computed By The Appellant. 2. Parti-Transfer Pricing Adjustments: Transfer Pricing ('Tp') Adjustment On Account Of Benchmarking & Allocation Of Royalty In Respect Of Provision Of Scientific & Technical Services ('Contract R&D')

For Appellant: Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala &For Respondent: Mr. Jayant Jhaveri.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

service 3 Share in Royalty Income 98,10,00,000/- From AE Total 156,10,51,345/- 5. Subsequently, the AO has passed Draft assessment order u/s 144C of the Act with a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 156,10,51,345/-. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee

M/S Piramal Enterprises Limiited, Mumbsi vs. Dy CIT(Appeal)-Range-8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 727/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Piramal Enterprises Ltd., Dy. Cit, Mumbai-8(1)(2), Or Piramal Tower, Agastya National Facelss Assessment Vs. Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Centre, Delhi, Kamani Junction, Kurla Room No. 624, 6Th Floor, (West), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400070. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacn 4538 P Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Ronak Doshi : Revenue By Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Cit-Dr & Mr. Samuel Pitta, Dr : Date Of Hearing 17/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 28/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Ronak Doshi
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)

struck down the Where Hon'ble Bombay High Court has struck down the Where Hon'ble Bombay High Court has struck down the draft assessment order itself passed w/s 143(3) r.w.s. draft assessment order itself passed w/s 143(3) r.w.s. draft assessment order itself passed w/s 143(3) r.w.s ... revised draft 144B(1), which mandates the AO to pass a revised draft 144B(1), which mandates the AO to pass a revised draft assessment order to an eligible assessment order to an eligible assessee w/s 144C, is assessee w/s 144C, is invalid and has no legs to stand. invalid

Marsh Mclennan Global Services India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Dept. Nationl E- Assessment Centre, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2452/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Anish ThakkarFor Respondent: Ms. Megha Bhargav
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80G

return of income declaring total income of INR 49,02,87,550/-. The case of the Appellant was selected for scrutiny. In the Draft Assessment Order, dated 17.09.2021, passed under Section 144C of the Act, the Assessing Officer proposed a disallowance of INR 28,72,578/- under Section ... directions issued by DRP and passed the Final Assessment Order giving the same reasoning as adopted by the Assessing Officer in the Draft Assessment Order which stood rejected by the DRP. Elaborating upon the aforesaid submission, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant submitted that during the relevant previous year

Madhu Kumar Patel, Hyderabad vs. ADIT, (Int. Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

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

ITA 395/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2015-16 Shri Madhu Kumar Patel Vs. A.D.I.T (Intl.Taxation)-2 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bvdpp3797G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.7.2022 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & A Resident Of The U.K. He Filed His Return Of Income On 31.08.2015 Declaring Total Income At Rs.2,91,07,000/- As Income From Long Term Capital Gain.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)

granted u/s 54F for A.Y 2012-13. The Assessing Officer accordingly determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.10.32.27,117/- in the draft assessment order. 8. The assessee filed objections before the DRP against the draft order passed by the Assessing Officer. However, the DRP vide directions dated ... Page 13 of 20 ITA No 395 of 2022 Madhu Kumar Patel Hyderabad deduction u/s 54F. Further, the Assessing Officer in the draft assessment order u/s 144C for A.Y 2014-15 has already proposed to reverse the entire deduction u/s 54F claim in A.Y 2012-13 amounting to Rs.6

Mylan Laboratoreis Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1897/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 32

transactions with Associated Enterprises (AEs), reference was made to the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and pursuant to his order dated 30/10/2018, a draft assessment order was passed on 31/12/2018 making several adjustments/additions including the addition on account of disallowance of depreciation claimed on goodwill arising out of amalgamation under

Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(4), Mumbai

In the result assessment order dated 30

ITA 2142/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 2142/मुं/ 2021 (िन.व. 2015-16) M/S. Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. Wagle Estate P.O., Lbs Marg Thane 400604 Pan: Aaocs7144Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3(4) World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400005 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Shri Hiten Chande "ितवाद" "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Vinod Tanwani सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 04.10.2022 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26.12.2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 30.09.2021 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’], For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Shri Nishant Thakkar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits At The Outset That He Would Be Making Submissions Only On The Jurisdictional Issue

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(12)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148

date to pass the draft order 31.12.2019 [u/s. 31.12.2019 [section 153(2) r.w.s. 153(4)] 153(1) r.w.s. 153(4)] 3 Draft assessment order u/s. 144C(1) 23.12.2019 26.12.2019 of the Act 4 Objections filed against draft order 21.01.2020 24.01.2020 u/s. 144C(2) of the Act 5 Due date

Torrent Petrochem Ltd( Presently Known As Blue Cross Road Solutions Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Transfer Pricing 4 (2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7373/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Jhaveri.DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

passed the order u/sec92CA(3) of the Act on 18.10.2018 with ALP adjustment of Rs.15,92,45,149/- Subsequently the draft assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(1) of the Act and was forwarded to the assessee. Against the draft assessment order the assessee has filed objections

Solvay Specialities India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed and ld

ITA 604/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Solvay Specialties India Pvt Ltd Dcit 16(2) Equinox Business Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower-4, 9Th Floor, Unit No. Vs. Mumbai-400 020 903, Lbs Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400 070 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aajcs0613F Assessee By : Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By : Richa Gulati – Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

For Appellant: Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Richa Gulati – Sr AR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 37Section 92C

passed by the Learned Assistance Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing 4(1)(1), Mumbai(TPO) u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act, the draft assessment order passed by the Learned AO u/s. 144C(1) of the Act as also the assessment order passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s

Tata Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1316/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

also addressed the very same issue. The relevant operative portion of the said order is reproduced hereunder:- 18. It is undisputed that Draft Assessment Order was notified by the AO in view of the fact that assessee's business involved International Money Transaction. Petitioner/assessee was entitled to have an opportunity ... look into Draft Assessment Order. He had option either to accept or to submit objections on variations. If objections were filed, in such an event, the AO is required to forward Draft Assessment Order and objections raised by the petitioner – assessee before the DRP to examine the objections raised

Tata Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1315/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-2012
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

also addressed the very same issue. The relevant operative portion of the said order is reproduced hereunder:- 18. It is undisputed that Draft Assessment Order was notified by the AO in view of the fact that assessee's business involved International Money Transaction. Petitioner/assessee was entitled to have an opportunity ... look into Draft Assessment Order. He had option either to accept or to submit objections on variations. If objections were filed, in such an event, the AO is required to forward Draft Assessment Order and objections raised by the petitioner – assessee before the DRP to examine the objections raised