“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

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 209/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 209/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Applied Materials India Pvt. Ltd., Unit -5, 3Rd Floor, The Deputy Explorer Building, Commissioner Of International Tech Income Tax, Park, Circle – 1(1)(1), Whitefield Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aaeca2635C Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 31/03/2021 Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 92C

Ld.TPO thus worked out the proposed adjustment at Rs.1,30,90,069/-. 2.9 On receipt of the transfer pricing order, Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order by further making addition u/s. 40(a)(ia) in respect of the reimbursement of salary and other related costs to the AE towards ... under: a) Transfer pricing addition –Rs.73,39,64,242/- b) Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) – Rs. 7,30,27,599/- 2.11 Against the draft assessment order, assessee filed objections before the DRP. 2.12 The DRP upheld the draft assessment order in respect of the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i). With

Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 404/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 404/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sasken Technologies Ltd., (Formerly Known As The Deputy Sasken Communication Commissioner Of Technologies Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 139/25, Domlur Circle – 6(1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aaecs6424R Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 15-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 31.01.2017 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General:- The Learned Ao & The Drp Erred In Passing The Order / Directions In The Manner Passed By Them. The Orders Passed Being Bad In Law Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha

Section 133(6)Section 2(24)Section 92BSection 92C

payments to AEs for software development services by AEs 69,45,962 Total 5,70,13,361 2.4 The learned AO passed the draft assessment order under section 144C r/w 143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2016. The learned AO incorporated the TP addition and also made the following disallowances ... Ld.AO reduced communication charges, foreign currency expenses and insurance charges only from export turnover in computing deduction under section 10AA as per the draft assessment order. The addition proposed on this ground amounted to Rs. 2,78,48,633. The DRP at para 10.1, page 16 of its directions directed

Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, the revenue appeal is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 460/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 460/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)

coordination of clinical trial activity. Accordingly, the TPO arrived at the TP adjustment of Rs.2,66,60,541/-. The AO while passing the draft assessment order, besides the TP adjustments, made the following disallowances: - a) Cost of samples - Rs. 3,47,65,606 b) Literature provided to doctors

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Astra Zenca Pharma India Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the revenue appeal is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 446/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 460/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3022/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

proposed aggregate transfer pricing adjustments of INR 179,61,83,140/- which was incorporated by the Assessing Officer in the Draft Assessment Order, dated 31.03.2015 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Act. The Assessing Officer also proposed (a) disallowance ... Assessing Officer. 3. The Assessee filed objections before Dispute Resolution Panel-II, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as „the DRP‟) against the aforesaid Draft Assessment Order which were disposed off vide order, dated 28.12.2015 passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act. In conformity with the directions issued

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2308/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

Shell Informaation Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 996/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 270A

customers to fall in the purview of “fee for technical services” under Article 12(5)(a) of the DTAA. The ld. AO vide draft assessment order dated 13/05/2021 did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the payment received by the assessee towards IT support services ... issue which is recorded in Para 53 as under: "5.3 Discussions and directions of DRP 5.3.1 We have considered the draft assessment order, submissions of assessee and material. We have seen that under the Master Services Agreement, the assessee SITI BV has furnished technical and advisory services to various clients

Torrecid India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Circle-3(3) (1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 660/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Torrecid India Private Limited Income Tax Circle-3(3)(1) Flat No. 29,30,31, Gidc, Savli, Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 Alidra, Vadodara, Vs. 020 Gujarat-391775 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcl4860B Assessee By : Shri. Sagar Sawhney. Revenue By : Shri. Samuel Pitta Srar Date Of Hearing: 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri. Sagar SawhneyFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Pitta SRAR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

made as per order under section 99CA(3) of the Act dated 27.01.2021. Accordingly, the AO made a draft assessment order u/s. 144C of the Act on 13.04.2021 where the total income of the assessee was determined at ₹ 99,31,760/-. 06. The assessee preferred objections before the ld. Dispute

Shellinformation Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2308/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 234DSection 270A

customers to fall in the preview of “fee for technical services” under Article 12(5)(a) of the DTAA. The ld. AO vide draft assessment order dated 13/05/2021 did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the payment received by the assessee towards IT support services ... issue which is recorded in Para 53 as under: "5.3 Discussions and directions of DRP 5.3.1 We have considered the draft assessment order, submissions of assessee and material. We have seen that under the Master Services Agreement, the assessee SITI BV has furnished technical and advisory services to various clients

Tyco Fire and Security India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 270/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

provision of SWD services by the Assessee to its AE. 6. The Assessee filed objections before the Disputes Resolution Panel (DRP) against the draft assessment order passed by the AO wherein the addition suggested by the TPO as adjustment consequent to determination of ALP was added to the total income

Finastra Software Solutions (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 268/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 268/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 80G

ITES segment - Rs.1,60,93,297/- (iii) Notional interest in respect of the delayed receivables - Rs. 7,29,62,864/- 3. Initially, a draft assessment order dated 26.11.2019 came to be passed by the Assessing Officer, in which the aforesaid TP adjustments were incorporated. Further, the Assessing Officer proposed

M/S. Sartorius Stedim India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1695/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1695/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sartorius Stedim India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 69/2 & 69/3, Commissioner Of Kunigal Road, Income Tax, Jakkasandra, Circle – 6(1)(1), Nelamangala, Vs. Bangalore. Bengaluru – 562 123. Pan: Aabcs7591Q Appellant Respondent : Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Assessee By Ca : Shri Venudhar Godesi, Revenue By Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28-10-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 20/05/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A) For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General Ground 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6 (Hereinafter Referred To As Cit(A)) To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law. Transfer Pricing - General Grounds 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao & Tpo In: A) Making A Reference For The Determination Of The Arm'S Length Price Of The International Transactions To The Tpo

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain

segment Para 9 81,59,183 TOTAL 1,21,29,221 3. On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order on 24/03/2016, incorporating the adjustment proposed by the Ld.TPO. The Ld.AO also made certain disallowances being software capitalized u/s. 40(a)(i) of Rs.6 ... deduction of TDS on purchases of computer software. 3.1 The assessee on receipt of the draft assessment order communicated to the Ld.AO regarding its preference to file an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Thus the Ld.AO passed the final assessment order on 20/05/2016. 3.2 Against this final assessment order

M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

claimed during the assessment. TDS credit and advance tax relating to ICIL not allowed even though it was allowed in the Draft assessment order 53. The learned AO has erred in not allowing TDS credit and advance tax relating to Infosys Consulting India Ltd merged with the appellant amounting ... Rs.27,73,096 and Rs.75,00,000 even though the same was allowed in the draft assessment order. Grounds on allowability of incremental foreign tax credit which was allowed in the Draft assessment order 54. The learned assessing officer has erred in not allowing foreign tax credit to the extent

Jm Morgan Stanley Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7118/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. LalaFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(2)

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 26,71,65,693, to the international transactions undertaken by the assessee. In conformity, the AO passed the draft assessment order assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 145,33,10,080, inter-alia, after making various disallowances/additions. The assessee filed detailed objections

Infinity Retail Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 10(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2297/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 40

addition to the above transfer pricing adjustments, the Assessing Officer also proposed corporate tax additions/disallowances in the Draft Assessment Order, dated 22.03.2013. The Appellant filed objections the Draft Assessment Order, dated 22.03.2013, before DRP which were disposed off by the DRP, vide order dated 26.12.2013. The Assessing Officer passed ... pocket expenses of INR 54,67,445/- as „Nil‟. The proposed transfer pricing adjustment of INR 54,67,445/- was incorporated in the Draft Assessment Order. The Appellant filed objections before the DRP. However, the DRP declined to grant any relief to the Appellant holding that the Appellant

M/S. Trianz Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 322/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.322/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Trianz Holdings Private The Additional /Dy./ Limited No.165/2, 6Th Floor Addl/Jt.Commissioner Of V. Kalyani Magnum, Doraisani Palya Income-Tax, Nfac, Delhi Iim Post, Bannerghatta Road Bangalore – 560 076. Pan : Aafca8051P. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT –DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

Total adjustment u/s 92CA of the I.T.Act 8,99,40,145 4. Pursuant to the TPO’s order, the Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order dated 08.04.2021 incorporating the TP adjustments of Rs.8,99,40,145 proposed by the TPO. The A.O. also proposed to disallow a sum of Rs.4 ... also proposed to make adjustment u/s 14A of the I.T.Act to the book profits u/s 115JB of the I.T.Act. 5. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee has filed objections on 28.05.2021 before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP vide its directions dated 18.01.2022, disposed off the objections

M/S United Spirits Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

In the result, ground 7 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3091/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.3091/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Joint Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Special Range-7 V. Bangalore. # 24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Counsel and Sri.Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT –DR

Section 115PSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

passed order dated 26.10.2017 u/s 92CA of the I.T.Act, determining the TP adjustment at Rs.1004,25,07,785. The Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order on 26.12.2017 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the I.T.Act, wherein he incorporated the TP adjustment suggested by the TPO. Further ... also proposed certain additions / disallowances on the corporate tax front. 3. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP vide its directions dated 29.09.2018, disposed off the objections of the assessee. The DRP upheld the TP adjustment proposed

Triumph International (India) Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 935/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 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)

Length Price (ALP) before Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer-III, Chennai (TPO) vide order dated 20-01-2014. Incorporating the proposed adjustment, draft assessment order was passed by Ld. AO on 31-03-2014 which was subjected to further objections before Ld. DRP. Subsequently, final assessment order was passed

Triumph International (India) Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 987/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

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)

M/S. Radisys India Limited (Formerly Known As Radisys India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 190/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahveer C Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Binod Kumar Singh, D.R

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

No.190/Bang/2022 M/s. Radisys India Limited, Bangalore Page 11 of 50 2.5 On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed draft assessment order by proposing to make an addition in the hands of assessee at Rs.18,29,67,620/-. 2.6. The assessee filed objections before