← All Phrases

“draft assessment order”

Assessment ProceduresSection 144CSection 144C4,773 judgments

The decision most relied on for draft assessment order is ACIT v. Serajuddin & Co. (454 ITR 312), cited in 580 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on draft assessment order

ACIT v. Serajuddin & Co.
454 ITR 312 · 2023 · High Court
580
citing judgments

Approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act is mandatory for assessment orders in search cases. While elaborate reasons for approval are not required, the approving authority must provide some indication that it has examined the draft orders and found them to meet the requirements of law.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Subodh Agarwal
149 Taxmann.com 373 · 2023 · High Court
194
citing judgments

Approval of draft assessment orders under Section 153D must be granted with due application of mind, not mechanically. Approving multiple cases, such as 38 in a single day, without proper scrutiny amounts to mechanical approval, rendering the assessment invalid.

Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP
369 ITR 113 · 2014 · High Court
140
citing judgments

Passing a final assessment order under Section 143(3) directly, without first issuing a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) for an eligible assessee, constitutes a fundamental jurisdictional defect. This defect cannot be cured by a subsequent corrigendum, especially if issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C. ET Compagnie v. Union of India
388 ITR 383 · 2016 · High Court
71
citing judgments

Failure to issue a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) makes the final assessment order illegal and beyond jurisdiction. Non-compliance with Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directions renders the final assessment order bad in law.

JCB India Ltd. v. DCIT
398 ITR 189 · 2017 · High Court
49
citing judgments

The requirement to pass a draft assessment order under Section 144C of the Act is mandatory. A final assessment order issued without such a draft order is a nullity, constituting an incurable jurisdictional error that cannot be saved by Section 292B, even in set-aside proceedings following an ITAT remand.

Aggarwal v. NFAC
127 Taxmann.com 637 · High Court
34
citing judgments

Denying a personal hearing when specifically requested, especially after a search and during a pandemic, violates the principles of natural justice. The assessment and appellate proceedings themselves were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hire Purchase (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC
128 Taxmann.com 190 · High Court
34
citing judgments

Failure to grant a personal hearing to an assessee when income is likely to be varied based on submitted evidence violates the principles of natural justice and renders the assessment order invalid.

Chandrakant Dharia v. ITO
469 ITR 262 · Reported
34
citing judgments

An adverse assessment order cannot be passed without granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the taxpayer. Where income is to be varied based on evidence, a personal hearing is mandatory.

Judgments citing draft assessment order

Immarsat Global Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose and ground raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 626/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleinmarsat Global Limited V. Dcit (It) – 2(2)(1) Ernst & Young Llp Room No. 1722, 17Th Floor 14Th Floor, The Ruby Air India Building, Nariman Point 29 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400021 Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028 Pan: Aaaci6098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarati Sathe Department By : Ms. Bharati Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Aarati SatheFor Respondent: Ms. Bharati Singh
Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)

under consideration." 4. After considering the submissions of the assessee in detail, Assessing Officer rejected submissions made by the assessee and passed the draft Assessment Order with the following observations: - “6.2. Assessee in the year has relied on many judicial precedents in its favour on how the same ... assessee. Accordingly, Assessing 11 Inmarsat Global Limited Officer passed the final Assessment Order sustaining the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the draft Assessment Order. 6. Aggrieved assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds in its appeal: - “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Zodiac Maritime Agencies India P. Ld., Mumbai vs. National E-Assesment Centre (Neac), Delhi

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

ITA 1225/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anil SatheFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 234Section 234BSection 92C

proposed in respect of international transactions pertaining to reimbursement of sea farer expenses. In conformity, the Assessing Officer („A.O.‟), inter-alia, passed the draft assessment order incorporating the adjustment proposed by the TPO. 6. In proceedings before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel („DRP‟), the assessee filed detailed objections against

Hp India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 524/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.524/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Hp India Sales Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income-Tax, Ltu V. Bangalore. Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Limited), 24 Salarpuria Area, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi Bangalore – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj Jain, Sri.Lalit Attal & Sri.Karon Dhanuka, Advoicates Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 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 03.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Import Of Computer Peripherals From Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) For Sale In India & Also Rendered Certain Support Services. The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-2013 Was Filed On 29.02.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.544,61,99,276. The Return Was Revised On 25.03.2014

For Appellant: Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj JainFor Respondent: Sri.Harishchandra Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

92CA of the I.T.Act vide order dated 28.01.2016 proposed TP adjustment of Rs.29,03,35,855. Pursuant to the TPO’s order, draft assessment order was passed on 28.03.2016 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the I.T.Act incorporating the above said TP adjustment proposed by the TPO. The Assessing ... Officer also made certain additions / disallowances on the corporate tax front. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee preferred objections before the Dispute Resolution Penal (DRP). The DRP vide its directions dated 26.12.2016 rejected the objections of the assessee and confirmed the TP adjustment proposed

Dell India Private Ltd., Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 562/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92C

Adjustment of Rs. 9,27,00,000/- determined in respect of the warranty expenses. 4. Pursuant to TP adjustment, a draft assessment order dated 25.03.2014 was passed by the AO in which the aforesaid TP adjustments were incorporated. Further, the A.O. also made various additions / disallowance on corporate tax issue

Tekla India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 211/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253Section 40

proposed an upward adjustment of Rs.57,97,930. In conformity, Trimble Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.211/Mum./2016 the Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order dated 19/02/2015. 8. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel („DRP‟) vide directions dated 27/11/2015, issued under section 144C(5) of the Act rejected the objections ... India, as the payment made by the assessee are towards the purchase of a copyrighted article. The Assessing Officer vide draft assessment order dated 19/02/2015 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) of the Act treated the payment made by the assessee to Tekla Finland as Royalty

Jardine Lloyd Thomposn India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1319/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1319/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Marsh Mclennan Global बिधम/ Ito, Range-15(2)(2) Services India Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. (Formerly Known As Jardine Mumbai-400020. Lloyd Thompson India Pvt. Ltd.) 1001-A, Supreme Business Park, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai-400076. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj8288K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nishant Thakkar / Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Revenue By: Ms. Samruddhi Hande (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2015 Passed For Ay. 2010-11 By Ao U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) In Pursuance To The Directions Given By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp).

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar / Ms. JasminFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

order passed u/s 92CA(3) dated 27.01.2014, resulting in TP adjustment of Rs.4,11,38,316/-. Incorporating the recommended TP adjustment, the draft assessment order was passed by the AO on 27.03.2014 in which further disallowances/additions were made. The assessee filed objections against the proposed variations to the total income

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT(It) 1(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5129/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

Thus, an adjustment of Rs. 7,96,36,154 was proposed by the TPO. In conformity, the Assessing Officer, inter-alia, passed the draft assessment order under section 143(3) with section 144C(1) of the Act. 7. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’), vide direction dated 18/04/2017 issued under

Novo Nordisk India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 611/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO], who made a TP adjustment of Rs.93,44,92,380. The AO passed a draft assessment order incorporating the TP adjustment, besides making disallowance of ESOP expenses and discount expenses. The assessee raised objections before the DRP, who confirmed the order

M/S. Onmobile Global Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2560/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 244ASection 32

passed an order dated 31.10.2017 under Section 92CA of the Act determining a TP adjustment of Rs. 104,95,80,620/-. Initially, a draft assessment order dated 27.12.2017 came to be passed by the AO in which, inter alia, the aforesaid TP adjustment was incorporated. The AO also proposed

M/S Onmobile Global Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 139/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 244ASection 32

passed an order dated 31.10.2017 under Section 92CA of the Act determining a TP adjustment of Rs. 104,95,80,620/-. Initially, a draft assessment order dated 27.12.2017 came to be passed by the AO in which, inter alia, the aforesaid TP adjustment was incorporated. The AO also proposed

Nuance Transcription Services India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 173/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.173/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Nuance Transcription The Assistant Commissioner Services India Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Circle 5(1)(1) V. Bangalore. First Floor, Block B, Salarpuria Aura, Khata No.434/170 Marathahalli-Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Kaverappa Layout Bangalore – 560 103. Pan : Aaacf3465F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Vishal Kalra, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2022 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 22.11.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is Engaged In Providing Information Technology Enabled Services (Ites) To Focus Enterprises Limited, Usa, Which Is An Associate Enterprise (Ae) Of The Assessee. For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring Total Income Of Rs.23,99,94,900. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 2 It(Tp)A No.173/Bang/2017. M/S.Nuance Transcription Services India Private Limited. 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Dated 14.08.2013 Was Served. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed That The Assessee Had Entered Into International Transactions With Its Ae. Accordingly, The Case Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Undertaken By The Assessee With Its Ae’S. The Tpo Vide Order Dated 28.01.2016, Passed U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act, Proposed The Following Tp Adjustments:-

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal Kalra, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Harishchandra Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 92C

receivables Rs.4,14,87,100 (ii) ALP adjustment to the ITES segment of the assessee Rs.12,55,88,656. The A.O. passed the draft assessment order in conformity with the TPO’s order. 3. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel

Polycom Technology Centre, Delhi vs. Nationa E- Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 944/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

proposed transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.19,20,39,380/-. 2 Ploycom Technology (R&D) Centre Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly the Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order making the above said addition. The assessee objected to the addition by filing the objections before learned Dispute Resolution Panel. In the meantime ... furnished report vide letter dated 1.01.2021 Relevant portion of the report is reproduced as below. 3. The assessee has filed objection against the draft assessment order vide objection No, 59 on 15.01.2020. The assessee subsequently has entered into an Unilateral Advance Pricing Agreement (APA") with the Central Board of Direct

Yokogawa India Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 588/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 234BSection 40A(2)

determining the arm's length price in respect of international transactions entered into by the assessee. The Ld. AO passed the draft assessment order on 12.12.2011 after receiving the order of the TPO u/s 92CA dated 31.10.2011 determining the total adjustment u/s 92CA at Rs.5,97,12,376/-. The assessee ... company had not filed objections against the draft assessment order Subsequently, the Ld. AO passed the final assessment order u/s 143(3) read with section I44C of the Act on 23.01.2012 making following adjustments / disallowances / additions: o Transfer pricing adjustment of Rs 5,97,12,376 under section 92CA

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 702/BANG/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 37

rendered.” 5.1 With regard to ground Nos.4 to 6 the facts of the case are as follows:- 5.2 The addition proposed in the draft assessment order on which the assessee has filed its objections are hereunder: a) Adjustment u/s 92CA (Arm’s length price difference in royalty payment

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 701/BANG/2021[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 37

rendered.” 5.1 With regard to ground Nos.4 to 6 the facts of the case are as follows:- 5.2 The addition proposed in the draft assessment order on which the assessee has filed its objections are hereunder: a) Adjustment u/s 92CA (Arm’s length price difference in royalty payment

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

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

ITA 2385/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

made submission on the same. The explanation of the assessee was examined but not found to be acceptable. As discussed in the draft assessment order dated 24.12.2018, the reimbursement of salary and other related costs paid by Airbus India to Airbus overseas towards seconded employees are chargeable to tax both ... said issue is the subject matter of order under section 201 and 201(1A) dated 10.04.2018. After a detailed discussion in the draft assessment order, it has been clearly established that the assessee has failed to deduct tax at source as stipulated u/s 195 on the payments made towards Engineering

DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Suisse Ag, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 14/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 5(2)Section 9(1)(vii)

Mumbai bank branch had no role to play in the performance of the referral activity in question. Neither the discussion in the draft assessment order and nor in the course of hearing before us any credible assertions to the contrary has been brought out by the Revenue. Thus, considering that

Mahindra Homes Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, RG- 7 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 7159/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan (CIT-DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

short “Act”] for the A.Y. 2014-15 2 ITA.No.7159/Mum./2018 Mahindra Homes Private Limited, Mumbai. and arises out of the draft assessment order passed by the Learned Income Tax Officer-7(2)(1), Mumbai [in short “A.O.”], vide order dated 30.12.2017 passed under section 143(3) read with Section144C ... corporate adjustments were made. The A.O. on receipt of the TPO order in respect of adjustment of assessee company international transactions, in the draft assessment order, 5 ITA.No.7159/Mum./2018 Mahindra Homes Private Limited, Mumbai. proposed thetotal taxable income was at Rs.99,21,200/- as against the returned income

Hempel Singapoe Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1205/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamini, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9

proceedings and have decided the matter in favour of the assessee for assessment years 2014–15 and 2015–16. The Assessing Officer vide draft assessment order dated 19/12/2019 passed under section 144C of the Act observed that the Revenue has preferred appeal before the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court against

Ups Express P Ltd. (Formerly Known As Ups Jetair Express P. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -11(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 1221/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan (CIT-DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 44ASection 92C

Express Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai. passed under section 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [In short “Act”] and arises out of the draft assessment order passed by the Learned ACIT, Circle-11(10(2)], Mumbai [in short “A.O.”], vide order dated 13.12.2019 passed under section 143(3)/144C ... dated 28.03.2019 and assessed the total income of the assessee company at Rs.56,02,82,910/- [rounded-off]. 2.1. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order of the A.O. the assessee company filed it’s objections before the DRP. The DRP with respect to transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.12