“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

Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir -2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1676/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan : Aaacm3025E Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs 020Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 Pan : Aaacm3025E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 40Section 80I

income on 29/03/2012 declaring total income of Rs. 18,99,47,48,506/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and draft assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s.144C (1) of the income tax Act 1961 dated 31/03/2014 was proposed to assess the income

Mwh India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1891/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 1891/मुं/2014 ("न. व. 2009-10 ) Mwh India Pvt. Ltd. 168, Udyog Bhavan, Sonawala Road, Goregaon(E) Mumbai 400 063. Pan: Aaaca-4613-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 9(2), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D.Mistri With Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Niraj Sheth ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 08/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 31/01/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D.Mistri with Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 50BSection 92C

management services as ‘Nil’ and made adjustment of Rs.74,05,940/-. The Assessing Officer in line with the order of TPO passed draft assessment order dated 23/03/2013 making addition in respect of TP adjustment. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has entered into an asset purchase agreement dated ... page 173 of the paper book. The Assessing Officer before taking cognizance of Form 3CEA filed by the assessee passed the draft assessment order on 22/03/2013. This fact was brought to the notice of DRP. The DRP considered the same and yet held the slump sale as international transaction

Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 413/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.413/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 192Section 195Section 37Section 40Section 92C

Operation Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 26 of 32 the provisions of section 37 of the I.T.Act (though there was some discussion in the draft assessment order with reference to disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I.T.Act). Therefore, grounds 2.1 to 2.8 are allowed and ground

Ntt Data Fa Insurance Systems (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 261/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.261/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Additionally, the TPO determined a TP adjustment in respect of interest on delayed receivables of Rs. 4,82,913/-. 3.1 Initially, a draft assessment order dated 07.12.2019 came to be passed by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’ for short), in which the aforesaid TP adjustment was incorporated. Aggrieved, the assessee filed

M/S. Mahindra Homes Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO/NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Asst Year 2016-17 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2179/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us That The Issues In Asst Year 2016-17 May Be Taken As The Lead Case & The Decision Rendered Thereon Would Apply With Equal Force For The Asst Year 2017-18 Also In View Of Identical Facts Except With Variance In Figures.

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

delete the T.P. adjustment addition of Rs.16,45,67,968/- proposed by the TPO and made by the A.O. in the draft assessment order.” 6.5. Respectfully following the same, we direct the ld. TPO to delete the TP adjustment made towards interest paid on CCDs to its AE. Accordingly ... with regard to non- granting of set-off of unabsorbed depreciation as per the computation sheet. It was submitted that in the draft assessment order passed by the ld. AO which was upheld by the ld. DRP, the ld. AO had granted credit of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation against

Mahindra Homes P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Range-7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Asst Year 2016-17 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1008/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

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

M/S. India Medtronics Pvt.Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(2), Baroda

In the result, similarly the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 480/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Rajan R. Vora with Sh. Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamath/ Akhtar Hussain Ansari

Section 234BSection 271Section 274Section 92C

aforesaid adjustment proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer was added back to the income of the assessee in the draft assessment order. The assessee filed its objections before the DRP that upheld the transfer pricing adjustment. 9. Shri Rajan Vora, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted, the Transfer Pricing Officer

American Chemical Society, Gurgaon vs. The Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1521/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri S.H. Usmani

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253(1)(d)Section 9(1)(vi)

also same in comparison to previous years and that no other income was earned by the assessee from India. The Assessing Officer, vide draft assessment order dated 30/06/2021, after noting that similar issue has been decided in favour of the assessee in all the aforesaid assessment years

American Chemical Society, Gurgaon vs. The Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1520/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri S.H. Usmani

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253(1)(d)Section 9(1)(vi)

Harakh Samir Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Ward 19 (2), Mumbai

ITA 6408/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

Assessee lodged objections to the reasons on 25th March, 2015. The Assessing Officer, without disposing of the Petitioner’s objections, made a draft assessment order dated 30th March, 2015, since this was a matter involving transfer pricing. In such circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court, set aside the assessment ... furnished to the Assessee. This Court held that the proceedings initiated by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), on the basis of such a draft assessment order, were without jurisdiction and quashed the same. 21. Similarly, in the case of KSS Petron Private Ltd. (supra), this Court was concerned with

Ge Be Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 304/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.304/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Ge Be Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 3(1)(1), 60, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Bengaluru. Whitefield, Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacg 6714 A Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Aliasgar Rampurawala, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

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

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

provision of SWD services by the assessee to its AE. 5. 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

Hp Pps Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 278/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 278/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Hp Pps Services India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 24, Salarpuria Commissioner Of Arena, Income Tax, Hosur Main Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Adugodi, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aadch5825N Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Assessee By Khincha, Ca : Shri Binod Kumar Singh, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 29/03/2021 Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “The Appellant Submits That: I. Transfer Pricing The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao'), Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('Learned Tpo') & The Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'Ble Drp')

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand

Total adjustment u/s 92CA 18,16,94,876/- 2.9 On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order on 27/11/2019 by proposing to make an addition of Rs.18,16,94,876/- in respect of the international transactions. The assessee filed objections before the DRP against ... draft assessment order. The DRP vide directions Page 12 IT(TP)A No. 278/Bang/2021 issued dated 11/02/2021 upheld the proposed comparables by the Ld.TPO. On receipt of the directions, the Ld.AO passed the impugned order on 29/03/2021 making addition of Rs.18,16,94,876/- in the hands of the assessee

M/S. Dell International Services India Private Limited ( Formerly Known As Dell Computer 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 392/BANG/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.392/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2004-05 M/S. Dell International Services The Deputy Commissioner Vs. India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, (Formerly Known As Dell Circle – 2(1)(1), Computer India Pvt. Ltd.,) Bengaluru. 12/1A, 12/2A, 13/1A, Diyashree Greens, Challaghatta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru-560 071. Pan : Aaach 1925 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 26.04.2021, Passed By The Dcit, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bengaluru, Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called The ‘Act’) In Relation To Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Assessee Is The Subsidiary Of Dell International Usa & Is Engaged In The Provision Of Call Centre Support Services, Back-Office Support Services & Offshore Development Support Services [Software Development (“Swd”)] To Its Associated Enterprises (“Aes”). The Assessee Provided The Aforesaid Services To It(Tp)A No.392/Bang/2021 Page 2 Of 12

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

services to be at arm’s length while made an adjustment towards the back-office support services and SWD services. 5. Consequently, a draft assessment order dated 17.02.2020 came to be passed in which the aforesaid TP adjustment was incorporated. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed its objections before the Dispute Resolution

M/S Opto Circuits India Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputty Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1315/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.1315/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Opto Circuits India Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.38, Electronic City Road Income-Tax, Circle 5(1)(2) V. Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Pan : Aaaco2165P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Shiva Prasad Reddy, Itp Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 06.01.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-2012. 2. There Is A Delay Of 171 Days In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit Of Managing Director Of The Assessee, Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. On Perusal Of The Reasons Stated, We Find That The Assessee By Mistake Had Filed An Appeal Before The Cit(A) (As Against The Final Assessment Order) & On Realizing The Mistake, Immediately The Assessee Filed Appeal Before The Tribunal. We Find There Is A Reasonable Cause For Belated Filing

For Appellant: Sri.Shiva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 92C

passed order u/s 92CA of the I.T.Act on 30.01.2015 proposing TP adjustment of Rs.14,12,85,237. Pursuant to the TPO’s order, draft assessment order was passed on 23.03.2015 incorporating the above TP adjustment and making certain other corporate tax disallowances / additions. 4. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order ... eligible assessee as per the definition of section 144C(15)(b) of the I.T.Act. Therefore, it is contended that the draft assessment order and the DRP’s directions are invalid. The assessee has also raised grounds on merits. 6. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the order

ACIT (It) 3(1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. J.P.Morgan Indian Investment Company Mauritius Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue becomes infructuous as dismissed

ITA 2382/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2382/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit-3(1)(1), M/S J. P. Morgan India R. No. 1628, 16Th Floor, Air Investment Company India Building, Nariman Mauritius Limited, बनाम/ Point, Mumbai-400 021 C/O- Srb & Associates Llp, Vs. 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacf0626J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No. 41/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S J. P. Morgan India Acit-3(1)(1), Investment Company R. No. 1628, 16Th Floor, Air India Mauritius Limited, Building, Nariman Point, बनाम/ C/O- Srb & Associates Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Llp, 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Anish Thacker, Ld. Ar सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 18.05.2022 & 23.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Anish Thacker, Ld. AR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144C

forward 'as it is' to the subsequent year(s), without setting off from the current year capital gain. 5. The AO in his draft assessment order required the assessee to file a justification for not setting off of the brought forward losses against the current year capital gain. In response ... subsequent years. Since the assessee intimated the Ld. AO about the non-acceptance of adjustments of the draft assessment order and choose to file the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) u/s 246A of the Act. 6. However, the Ld. CIT (A) accepted the contention of the assessee

M/S. Aura Spinwell Ltd., Mumbai vs. The ITO-Circle-4(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

ITA 1147/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S Aura Spinwell Ltd. The Ito Office No. 209, Circle 4(1)(3) Kapadia Chambers, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. J.S.S. Road, M.K. Road, Marine Line East, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacce3114A

For Appellant: None

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

made by order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act dated 1st November, 2019. Consequent to that draft assessment order was passed on 19th December, 2019. 05. Assessee preferred the objection before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel wherein the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench in case of Texport Overseas

Global E-Business Operations 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 212/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri.P.C.Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 92C

Rs.64,81,44,230 in respect of the international transactions entered by the assessee with its AEs during the previous year. The draft assessment order was passed on 16.12.2019 incorporating the above transfer pricing adjustment suggested by the TPO and also making corporate tax addition to the extent of Rs.7 ... disallowance u/s 37 of the I.T.Act). 3. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP vide order dated 25.02.2021 granted partial relief to the assessee, whereby the transfer pricing adjustment was reduced to Rs.30,29,80,250. The DRP, however

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Indian Hotels Companies Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2408/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

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

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

proposed aggregate transfer pricing adjustments of INR 106,67,93,791/- which was incorporated by the Assessing Officer in the Draft Assessment Order dated 31.03.2014 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Act. The Assessing Officer also proposed (a) disallowance ... 2408/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 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 29.12.2014 passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act. In conformity with the directions issued

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

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

ITA 2348/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

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

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

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

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

ITA 242/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.242/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Continuserve Softech India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Prathik Tech Park, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Bengaluru. Sy. No.93/1, Veerasandra Village, Attibele Hobli, Hosur Road, Electronic City Phase 1, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaacc 8342 A Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Darpan Kirpalani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Darpan Kirpalani, AdvocateFor 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