“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

3A Composites India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appealof the assessee for A

ITA 1112/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Naniwadekar, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37(1)Section 92Section 92C

passing an order under Section 92CA (3) of the Act on 26th December, 2014. Based on this, the draft assessment order was passed determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 1,87,64,680/-. 06. The assessee filed an objection before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai

Siemens Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1954/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

barred by limitation and void ab initio; hence the same is liable to be quashed. 2. Without prejudice to the above ground, the draft assessment order under section 143(3) read with 144C(1) of the Act, in name of Siemens VAI Metals Technologies Private Limited being a non-existent ... heard on the jurisdictional issue at the outset. In additional grounds No. 2 and 3, the assessee has challenged the validity of the draft assessment order and directions issued by the learned DRP on a non-existing entity. While, in additional ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged that

3A Composites India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appealof the assessee for A

ITA 1100/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Naniwadekar, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37(1)Section 92Section 92C

Tessitura Monti India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD) 8(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 799/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

capital goods. The remaining international transactions were accepted to be at arm’s length by the TPO. In conformity, the AO passed the draft assessment order dated 28/01/2014, disallowing the depreciation of Rs. 78,19,369, claimed on the adjustment proposed by the TPO. 6. The assessee filed detailed objections

Lintas India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

The appeal is allowed with the same directions

ITA 595/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Acit Cir 3(2)(1) Lintas India Private Limited It Office, R.No. 608, 6 Th 15Th Floor, Express Towers, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Lintas India Private Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit/Income- Limited 15Th Floor, Express Tax Officer, National Faceless Vs. Towers, Nariman Point, Appeal Centre, Delhi Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Assessee By : Shri Ajit Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2022

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain and SiddheshFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(10)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

vide order under Section 92CA (3) of the Act the adjustment of ₹18,36,63,743/- was proposed. 07. Based on this, the draft assessment order was passed on 26thDecember 2017 where the above adjustment of transfer pricing was made. Over and above, the learned Assessing Officer noted that ... addition. 09. Accordingly, assessment order was passed on 29thNovember 2018 determining the total income at ₹68,08,24,460/- which was determined in draft assessment order as the learned Dispute Resolution Panel did not give any relief to the assessee. Against this, assessee is in appeal before

Lintas India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed with the same directions

ITA 398/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain and SiddheshFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(10)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Ubs Ag, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(3)(1)

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 842/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Bafna a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234Section 92C

capital gain. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 17. During the hearing, the learned DR vehemently relied upon the draft assessment order. On the contrary, the learned AR placed reliance upon the decisions of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case

DCIT (It) 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ubs Ag, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1347/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Bafna a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234Section 92C

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Exxon Mobile Company India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection by the

ITA 2016/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Asst. Cit-6(1)(1) M/S. Exxon Mobile Company India Room No. 504, 5Th Floor, Private Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Kalpatru Point, Plot No. 107, Road No. 8, Sion (E), Mumbai-400 022 Pan/Gir No. Aaace 3157 H (Revenue) (Assessee) : & C.O. No. 125/Mum/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2016/Mum/2022) (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Exxon Mobile Company India Asst. Cit-6(1)(1) Room No. 504, 5Th Floor, Private Ltd. Kalpatru Point, Plot No. 107, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Road No. 8, Sion (E), Mumbai-400 022 Pan/Gir No. Aaace 3157 H (Assessee) : (Revenue) Revenue By : Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande Assessee By : Shri Paras Savla / Adish Shenoy Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla / Adish ShenoyFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

dated 29.11.2012, declaring total income of Rs.76,03,89,600/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and draft assessment order dated 07.03.2016 was passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(1) of the Act. Pursuant to this, the final assessment order dated

M/S Greatship (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Add/Jt/Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed

ITA 650/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri M M GolwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

vide order dated 28.01.2021 was passed by the TPO under Section 92CA(3) of the Act. 6. On 19.04.2021, the Assessing Officer passed Draft Assessment Order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) of the Act proposing aforesaid transfer pricing adjustment of INR 9,43,88,840/- Further ... Assessment Year: 2017-18 7. The Appellant filed objections before Dispute Resolution Panel-1, (WZ) [hereinafter referred to as „the DRP‟] against the Draft Assessment Order, dated 19.04.2021. No relief was granted by the DRP as all the objections raised by the Appellant were dismissed. The DRP issued directions under

Excellence Data Research Private Limited, Hyderabad, Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 461/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar (CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Length Price (ALP) before Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer-3, Hyderabad (TPO) vide order dated 29-01-2016. Incorporating the proposed adjustment, draft assessment order was passed by Ld. AO on 16-03-2016 which was subjected to further objections before Ld. DRP. Subsequently, final assessment order was passed

Lanxess India P.Ltd, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 1, Thane

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

ITA 971/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. ChandniFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 69CSection 92C

respect of goods exported from Thane Plant and Nagda Plant, respectively. The Assessing Officer proposed the aforesaid transfer pricing addition in the Draft Assessment Order, dated 24.03.2014. Further, the 3 ITA. No. 971/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessing Officer also proposed (a) addition of INR 48,69,49,361/- being ... excess of the balances recorded by the Appellant in his books of accounts. 5. The Appellant filed objections before the DRP against the Draft Assessment Order, dated 24.03.2014 which were rejected and therefore, Final Assessment Order, dated 10.12.2014 was passed by the Assessing Officer making transfer pricing addition

It Expressway Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle II(3), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1040/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar (CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

ACIT Cir 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Merck Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1798/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S. Merk Limited Godrej One, 8Th Floor, Dcit 7(2)(1) Pirojshanagar , Range 7(2)(1) Eastern Express Highway Vs. Mumbai Vikhroli(E) Mumbai-400 079 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Merk Limited Acit Cir 7(2)(1) R.No. 573, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Shivsagar Estate A Dr. Bhavan, M.K. Road, A.B. Road, Worli, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 018 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace2616F Assessee By : Ms. Arativissanji, Ms. Astha Shah Revenue By : Shri. Samuel Pitta Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2022

For Respondent: Shri. Samuel Pitta

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 4Section 5Section 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92C(2)

92CA(3) of the Act was passed on 12.01.2015 proposing the total adjustment at ₹ 3,97,18,708/-. 010. Based on this, the draft assessment order u/s. 143(3) was passed. The ld. AO over and above the above adjustment a. Disallowed ₹92,158/- on account of delay in payment

Merck Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1525/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

For Respondent: Shri. Samuel Pitta

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 4Section 5Section 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92C(2)

Kontoor Brands India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 214/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, V.P. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.214/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Kontoor Brands India Private The Assistant Commissioner Limited, (Formerly Known As Vf Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(3)(1) V. Bangalore. Brands India Private Limited) Awfis, 1St Floor, Shabari Complex Field Marshal Cariappa Road Ashok Nagar, Bangalore North Richmond Town S.O. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Aaccv2727L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Nageswar Rao, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2022 Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu , Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer On 02.02.2022 U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The I.T.Act. For The Relevant Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised As Many As 34 Grounds, But During The Course Of Hearing, The Learned Ar Confined His Argument Only To Ground No.1, Challenging The Legal Issue, Which Is As Under:-

For Appellant: Sri.Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR

Section 13Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

order u/s 92CA(3) on 25.01.2021 proposing addition of Rs.25,73,90,940 for international transactions . Thereafter, the A.O.(Assessing Officer) passed draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) on 31.03.2021. 4. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order passed by the AO on 31.03.2021, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute

M/S Toyota Kirloskar Motors (P) Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 150/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R

Section 40A(2)

29/01/2016. IT(TP)A No.150/B/2017 & 320/B/2019 Page 18 of 110 3.13 After receipt of order from the TPO u/s 92CA, the AO passed draft assessment order after making the certain additions as under:- 3.14 Accordingly, he assessed income of Rs.446,32,51,992/- and passed his order on 21/03/2016 ... Valuation (Pg 1315 to 1317 of PB-III), which suggests only incremental amounts to be provided for in the books of accounts. In draft assessment order, the learned AO disallowed the provision on the ground that it is contingent in nature (Pg 120 of Appeal Papers). 3.2 Before

Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-1, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 2976/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. V. Balaji (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Length Price (ALP) before Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer-2, Chennai (TPO) vide order dated 31-10- 2016. Incorporating the proposed adjustment, draft assessment order was passed by Ld. AO on 30-12-2016 which was subjected to further objections before Ld. DRP. Subsequently, final assessment order was passed

Infiniti Retail Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 461/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

Limited [Lack of supporting third party invoice /documents] Total 58,99,019/- 5. In addition to the above transfer pricing adjustments, in the Draft Assessment Order, dated 23.02.2015 the Assessing Officer also proposed corporate tax disallowances of INR.50,43,085/- being lease rental payments made during the relevant previous year ... software maintenance expenses of INR 97,89,384/-. The Appellant filed objections to the Draft Assessment Order, dated 23.02.2015, in relation to the aforesaid proposed additions before DRP which were rejected by the DRP, vide order dated 22.10.2015. The Assessing Officer passed the Final Assessment Order, dated

Mindteck (India) Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 211/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R

Section 143(3)

account of ITeS segment. The total adjustments amounted to Rs. 7,75,16,397/- 2.5 The Assessing officer issued Draft assessment order under section 144C of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] on IT(TP)A No.211/Bang/2022 M/s. Mindteck (India) Limited, Bangalore Page