“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

Eversendai Construction Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2084/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2084/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.Eversendai Construction- V. The Dy. Commissioner- Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Plot No.1 & 2, The Lords, Corporate Circle-2(1), Block-1, 5Th Floor, Chennai. Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai.

For Appellant: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram, AdvFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

sales of the international transactions. 5. Pursuant to the TPO order u/s.92CA(3) of the Act, dated 28.10.2016, the AO has passed draft assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(1) of the Act, on 30.06.2017 and proposed TP adjustment as suggested by the TPO. The AO had also made additions towards ... belated remittances under respective Acts and also disallowed excess depreciation claimed on printer, UPS and port switch, etc. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objection before the DRP and the DRP vide their order passed u/s.144C(5) of the Act, dated 05.05.2017 rejected the objection filed

Hanyang Automotive India Pvt Ltd., Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 439/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 439/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. S. Palanikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

downward adjustment of Rs. 2,73,10,221/- in respect of international transactions. In pursuant to directions of the TPO, the AO passed draft assessment order u/s. 144C(1) of the Act and proposed the TP adjustment as suggested by the TPO. The assessee has filed objections against draft assessment

Spencer Stuart International B.V. Tax, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (It) -4(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 514/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Lovish Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)

issued by the DRP under section 144C(5) of the Act, without judiciously and independently considering the factual and legal objections to the draft assessment order, is illegal and bad in law. 3. The learned DRP/Assessing Officer erred in holding that a sum of Rs.12,25,20,725 /- received ... issued by the DRP under section 144C(5) of the Act, without judiciously and independently considering the factual and legal objections to the draft assessment order, is illegal and bad in law. Spencer Stuart International B.V. ITA No.514/Mum./2022 12. The learned DRP/Assessing Officer erred in holding that management fees

Spencer Stuart International B.V., Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 318/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Lovish Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)

issued by the DRP under section 144C(5) of the Act, without judiciously and independently considering the factual and legal objections to the draft assessment order, is illegal and bad in law. 3. The learned DRP/Assessing Officer erred in holding that a sum of Rs.9,65,77,826/- received ... services and related support services to group companies and third-party franchises. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and vide draft assessment order dated 22/02/2021 passed under section 144C of the Act total income of the assessee was computed at Rs. 11,25,62,890, after making

Cma Cgm Sa, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT (International Taxationa)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, additional grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1013/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Lovish Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270ASection 44B

transportation of cargo in international traffic and it falls under Article 9 of India France Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”). The AO vide draft assessment order rejected the claim of the assessee and held that the IHC received for transportation of goods in domestic areas. The AO further held that ... assessee was transporting the goods by means of feeder vessels which were neither owned nor chartered by the assessee company. The AO vide draft assessment order held that the journey through feeder vessels to mother vessel is falling under Article 7 of DTAA and accordingly treated

Aquity Solutions India Pvt.Ltd(Formerly Known As Mmodal Global Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.Ci.T.15(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 713/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Harsh ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi D. Hande

Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(5)

interest to be charged by assessee to AE on outstanding trade receivables. The AO passed the draft assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act after incorporating the adjustment proposed by the TPO. 9. The assessee filed detailed objections before the learned DRP against the adjustment proposed

Howden Solyvent (India) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

Appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 732/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kripalani (Advocate) &For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar- CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 43B

Length Price (ALP) before Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer-IV, Chennai (TPO) vide order dated 27-01-2014. Incorporating the proposed adjustment, draft assessment order was passed by Ld. AO on 25-02-2014 which was subjected to further objections before Ld. DRP. Subsequently, final assessment order was passed ... these services were held to be Nil and TP adjustment was proposed by Ld. TPO in its order which was incorporated in the draft assessment order. 4.4 The assessee assailed the adjustment before Ld. DRP and made elaborate submissions in support of its case. The Ld. DRP noted the directions

Dhl Logistics Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 553/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Section 234Section 234BSection 271ASection 27oSection 920

international transaction of freight revenue and freight expenses. The assessee objected the transfer pricing adjustment communicated to it by way of draft assessment order. The Ld.DRP, after considering submission of the assessee on the objections, issued certain directions to the Ld.AO / TPO. After complying with the directions of the Ld.DRP

Imperial Jewels, Mumbai vs. NFAC/DCIT, Cir -24(1), Mumbai

ITA 398/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, D.R

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(15)(b)Section 144C(3)Section 153Section 92C

hold that the SDTs of assessee were in accordance with arms length standards required under the Indian Regulation. Thereafter, the AO passed draft assessment order under section 144C proposing addition of Rs.45,11,092/-. 4. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing objections ... provisions contained under section 144C do not apply; that since Ld. TPO has 4 M/s. Imperial Jewels not made any TP adjustment, no draft assessment order could have been passed by the AO and; that order passed by the AO is time barred under section

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) - RG. 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 6935/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Us Are As Follows:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 9(1)(i)

matter in detail. Coming back to the fixed place permanent establishment case of the Assessing Officer, as put to the assessee in the draft assessment order, the assessee raised objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel. It was submitted by the assessee that the assessee does not have any place

M/S. Biesse Manufacturing Company Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 338/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri, Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar K. Ganeshan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 92C

segment for an amount of Rs.16,14,17,954 and also interest on delayed receivables for Rs.45,80,016. The AO passed the draft assessment order incorporating the TP adjustment. The AO also made an addition towards secondment charges and reimbursement of expenses for an amount of Rs.1

Ravikumar Tirupati Parthasarathy, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 676/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C

provisions of section 144C of the Act, the AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C by issuing a draft assessment order in which an addition of Rs.52,89,346 was made towards capital gains. Aggrieved, the assessee filed its objections before the DRP, who confirmed the said addition ... considered by the assessee while computing the capital gains. 4. The assessee also raised additional grounds with regard to maintainability of the draft assessment order for opting DRP route for a non-resident for the year under consideration and also for AO not considering the brokerage / selling expenses of Rs.1

Keller Ground Engineering India Private Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

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

ITA 114/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadhri, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 156Section 92C

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai in ITA No.61/16-17 dated 25.10.2017. The draft assessment order was passed by the ACIT, Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai for the assessment year 2012-13 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) of the Income ... themandatory procedure laid down in section 144C of the Act is invalid in law and should be struck down as much. 2. The draft assessment order, which is in essence the final assessment order, given that the notice of demand had also been issued and penalty has also been initiated

Dover India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 460/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.460/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Dover India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Bagmane Laurel, 1St Floor, Circle – 2(1)(1), Block C, Bagmane Tech Park, Bengaluru. C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aaaci 3920 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Chavali Narayanan, Ca Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 29.03.2022 Of National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Providing Software Development Services (Swd Services), To Its Wholly Owned Holding Company. In Terms Of The Provisions Of Sec.92-A Of The Act, The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

provision of SWD services by the Assessee to its AE. 7. 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 to ALP was added to the total income of the Assessee

Essilor India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 448/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 448/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Essilor India Pvt. Ltd., 10Th Floor, Prestige The Deputy Trade Tower, Commissioner Of 46, Palace Road, Income Tax, High Grounds Circle – 2(1)(1), Sampangi Rama Bangalore. Vs. Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan: Aaace4623J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 31/03/2022 Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 92Section 92C

stock of Rs.1,72,98,009/-, disallowance of interest written off OG debtors of Rs.9,66,05,046/-. 2.4 On receipt of the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the DRP. The DRP upheld the transfer pricing addition proposed. The Ld.AO/TPO however in respect of the corporate ... following the directions of the DRP in respect of the corporate tax issues and the addition made by the Ld.AO following the draft assessment order. In the interest of justice, we direct the Ld.AO to consider the claims in accordance with the directions of the DRP, having regard

Synamedia India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 350/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

determining the total adjustment of Rs.39,73,04,165 which was subsequently rectified to Rs.38,89,77,407. The AO passed a draft assessment order incorporating the TP adjustment. Aggrieved, the assessee raised objections before the DRP. Based on directions of DRP, the TP adjustment was enhanced to Rs.40

Mfx Infotech Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 251/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 251/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144B

interest on delayed receivable as Rs.28,18,152. In the final assessment order however the TP adjustment is retained as in the draft assessment order. In the detailed grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, the ground pertaining to the AO retaining the addition made towards TP adjustment ... cost and its employees who are involved in such IT and communication are considered for allocation of the expenditure. The AO, in the draft assessment order, has considered number of employees in STPI and SEZ division and has come to the conclusion that the assessee is not following head-count

Parexel International Clinical Research Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 189/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 189/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Parexel International Clinical Research Pvt. Ltd., Cowrks, Rmz The Assistant Ecoworld, Ground Commissioner Of Floor, Bay Area- Income Tax, Adjacent To Building Circle 5(1)(2), 6A, Outer Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aadcp9318C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Chandini Shah, Ca : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi Dated 26/03/2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Chandini Shah, CA

Section 92C

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 1,07,62,545. 2.6 On receipt of the order of Ld.TPO, the assessing officer passed the draft assessment order on 15/11/2019 in compliance with the order u/s. 92CA. 2.7 Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, assessee filed objections before the DRP. The DRP upheld

M/.S Synamedia India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed in respect of the issues argued and considered hereinabove

ITA 2595/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2595/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd., Block 9A & 9B, The Deputy Pritech Park, Commissioner Of Survey No. 51-64/4, Income Tax, Sarjapur Outer Ring Circle – 6(1)(2), Road, Bengaluru. Vs. Bellandur Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan: Aaccn1140K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 29/10/2019 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate

Section 143(2)

applying a 6 month LIBOR + 400 basis points i.e. 4.38%. 2.17 On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order by disallowing a sum of Rs.29,67,677/- as income from other sources. Assessee against the draft assessment order filed objections before

M/S. Marvell India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2577/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28

transactions of the assessee with its Associated Enterprises [AE]. The TPO determined a TP adjustment of Rs.14,23,45,600. The AO passed draft assessment order incorporating the TP adjustment. The AO also made an addition u/s. 28(iv) with regard to the assets received by the assessee from