← 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

M/S. Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 475/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 35

made to the TPO for computation of ALP of the international transactions the assessee had with its AE. The AO initially passed the draft assessment order incorporating the TP IT(TP)A No.475/Bang/2020 Page 3 of 12 adjustment along with certain additions in the corporate tax front against which

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

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

ITA 2623/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2623/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Blue Coat Network (India) Pvt. Ltd., Unit No. 1001 & 1002, The Deputy 10Th Floor, Rmz Campus Commissioner Of 8-B, Income Tax, Plot No. C-L, Sarjapur Circle – 1(1)(2), Marathalli Outer Ring Bangalore. Vs. Road, Bangalore – 560 037. Pan: Aahcs7844Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 22/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle -1 (1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA
Section 143(2)

follows: Page 17 IT(TP)A No. 2623/Bang/2019 3.14 On receipt of the transfer pricing order under 92CA, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order on 05/12/2018 by making further additions along with the adjustment proposed u/s. 92CA, being disallowance on account of addition made to fixed assets Rs.6 ... Against the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the DRP. DRP upheld the adjustment proposed by the Ld.TPO. 3.16 On receipt of the DRP directions, the Ld.AO passed the impugned order by incorporating the additions proposed in the draft assessment order. Page 18 IT(TP)A No. 2623/Bang/2019

Interactive Brokers (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4860/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri O. P. Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. (Tp) No.2088/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4860/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) Interactive Brokers (India) बिधम/ Dcit-4(1)(1) Pvt Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 502/A, Times Square, Mumbai. Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400059. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci6871R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jeet Kamdar Revenue By: Shri Pankaj Kumar (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 30.01.2017 First For A.Y.2012-13 & Assessment Order Dated 23.05.2017 For A.Y.2013-14 U/S 143(3) R.W. Section 144C(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. We First Take Up The Appeal For Ay 2012-13. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Read As Under: - “Ground No.1 Disallowance Of Cost Of Administrative Support Services For Internal Audit Support, Clearing & Treasury Support Function 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘(Drp')/ Income Tax Officer — Dcit, Range 4(1)(1) (‘Ao’) / Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (‘Tpo’) Erred In Re-Computing The Alp Of The International Transaction Of Payment Of Administrative Support Service Fee For Internal Audit Support, Clearing & Treasury Support Function By The Appellant To Its 2

For Appellant: Shri Jeet KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92C

thereto, the TPO also disallowed the mark-up of 10% paid by the assessee on such administrative support services. 7. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order passed u/s 144C of the Act by the AO inter alia including the transfer pricing adjustment, the assessee filed objections before

Interactive Brokers (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2088/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri O. P. Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. (Tp) No.2088/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4860/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) Interactive Brokers (India) बिधम/ Dcit-4(1)(1) Pvt Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 502/A, Times Square, Mumbai. Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400059. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci6871R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jeet Kamdar Revenue By: Shri Pankaj Kumar (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 30.01.2017 First For A.Y.2012-13 & Assessment Order Dated 23.05.2017 For A.Y.2013-14 U/S 143(3) R.W. Section 144C(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. We First Take Up The Appeal For Ay 2012-13. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Read As Under: - “Ground No.1 Disallowance Of Cost Of Administrative Support Services For Internal Audit Support, Clearing & Treasury Support Function 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘(Drp')/ Income Tax Officer — Dcit, Range 4(1)(1) (‘Ao’) / Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (‘Tpo’) Erred In Re-Computing The Alp Of The International Transaction Of Payment Of Administrative Support Service Fee For Internal Audit Support, Clearing & Treasury Support Function By The Appellant To Its 2

For Appellant: Shri Jeet KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92C

thereto, the TPO also disallowed the mark-up of 10% paid by the assessee on such administrative support services. 7. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order passed u/s 144C of the Act by the AO inter alia including the transfer pricing adjustment, the assessee filed objections before

Airlinq Technology Private Limited (Formerly Known As Globetouch Technologies Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 231/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.231/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Airlinq Technology Pvt. Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Globe Touch Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Technologies Private Limited) 306, 100 Feet Road, Binna Mangala Stage – 1, Indiranagar Bangalore – 560 038. Pan : Aafcg7626L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Sri.Ajit Kumar Jain & Siddesh Chaugule, Cas Respondent By : Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 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 29.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Was Incorporated On 15.10.2014 As A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Globetouch Inc, Usa. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Software Development Services (Swd) To Globetouch Inc. For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring An Income Of Rs.4,23,01,510 Under The Normal Provisions Of The Income-Tax Act. The Assessment Was Selected

For Appellant: S/Sri.Ajit Kumar Jain & Siddesh Chaugule, CAsFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D

Transfer Pricing adjustment of a sum of Rs.2,37,17,678 in respect of SWD segment. Pursuant to the TPO’s order, draft assessment order was passed incorporating the above TP adjustment. The assessee preferred objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP vide its directions dated 26.03.2021, disposed

M/S Sap Labs India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 561/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92D

barred by limitation in terms of section 92CA(3A) r.w.s 153 of the Act, the action of the Assessing Officer in passing the draft assessment order dated 24 March, 2014 by invoking section 144C of the Act is without jurisdiction and thus all proceedings consequent to the draft assessment order ... barred by limitation in terms of section 92CA(3A) r.w.s 153 of the Act, the action of the Assessing Officer in passing the draft assessment order dated 24 March, 2014 by invoking section 144C of the Act is without jurisdiction and thus all proceedings consequent to the draft assessment order

D.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 437/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92D

barred by limitation in terms of section 92CA(3A) r.w.s 153 of the Act, the action of the Assessing Officer in passing the draft assessment order dated 24 March, 2014 by invoking section 144C of the Act is without jurisdiction and thus all proceedings consequent to the draft assessment order ... barred by limitation in terms of section 92CA(3A) r.w.s 153 of the Act, the action of the Assessing Officer in passing the draft assessment order dated 24 March, 2014 by invoking section 144C of the Act is without jurisdiction and thus all proceedings consequent to the draft assessment order

M/S Quicklogic Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 181/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 181/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Quicklogic Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., No. 10 Brindavan, The Deputy 3Rd Floor, Commissioner Of Yashoda Nagar Main Income Tax, Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Jakkur Plantation, Vs. Bangalore. Bengaluru – 560 064. Pan: Aaacq0656P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mahaveer C Jain, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 25/01/2022 By The National Faceless Assessment Centre For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer C Jain, CA
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

receivables 24,25,718 Total adjustment u/s 92CA 1,99,59,948 2.7 On receipt of order u/s. 92CA, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order by incorporating the transfer pricing additions. 2.8 On receipt of the draft assessment order, assessee filed objections before the DRP. 2.9 Before

Cerner Healthcare Solutions India Private Limited (Erstwhile Cerner Healthcare Solution Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 171/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 270ASection 37Section 40

scrutiny and the reference IT(TP)A No.171/Bang/2022 Page 3 of 10 was made to Transfer Pricing Officer. The AO passed the draft assessment order by making aforesaid disputed disallowances besides the TP adjustment. The DRP, against the objections raised by the assessee confirmed the disallowances and the TP adjustment

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

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

ITA 477/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Smt. Rashmi R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

made TP adjustment in SWD segment and interest on receivables for an amount of Rs.11,50,59,080. The AO passed the draft assessment order incorporating the TP adjustment. In addition to TP adjustment, the AO also made a disallowance of depreciation on goodwill claimed by the assessee. The assessee

Polycom Technology ( R & D ) Center P. Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Cir 7(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2067/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Lohia & Shri MihirFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

service provider fails. Accordingly, Ld TPO characterized function of assessee as research and development service provider and adjustment of ₹5,40,23,292/-. Draft assessment order was passed on 29th March 2016, wherein above adjustment was made. 07. Assessee filed objection before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel. Assessee submitted that

Vena Energy Patan Power Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.254/Bang/2022 is partly allowed, while

ITA 255/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

made an adjustment of Rs.20,07,90,532 towards interest on Non-Convertible Debentures (NCD) issued to the AE. The AO passed the draft assessment order incorporating the TP adjustment and also made the following other additions:- a. Disallowance of salary expenses & Service fees ... Rs.31,30,405 f. Disallowance of depreciation on capitalized pre-operative cost brought forward from AY 2016-17 – Rs.8,72,579 Against the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections 4. before the DRP, which confirmed the TP adjustments. In pursuance of the directions of the DRP, the AO passed

Vena Energy Kn Wind Power Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.254/Bang/2022 is partly allowed, while

ITA 254/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

made an adjustment of Rs.20,07,90,532 towards interest on Non-Convertible Debentures (NCD) issued to the AE. The AO passed the draft assessment order incorporating the TP adjustment and also made the following other additions:- a. Disallowance of salary expenses & Service fees ... Rs.31,30,405 f. Disallowance of depreciation on capitalized pre-operative cost brought forward from AY 2016-17 – Rs.8,72,579 Against the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections 4. before the DRP, which confirmed the TP adjustments. In pursuance of the directions of the DRP, the AO passed

Vena Energy Mh Wind Power Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.254/Bang/2022 is partly allowed, while

ITA 253/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

made an adjustment of Rs.20,07,90,532 towards interest on Non-Convertible Debentures (NCD) issued to the AE. The AO passed the draft assessment order incorporating the TP adjustment and also made the following other additions:- a. Disallowance of salary expenses & Service fees ... Rs.31,30,405 f. Disallowance of depreciation on capitalized pre-operative cost brought forward from AY 2016-17 – Rs.8,72,579 Against the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections 4. before the DRP, which confirmed the TP adjustments. In pursuance of the directions of the DRP, the AO passed

Vena Energy Fatanpur Power Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.254/Bang/2022 is partly allowed, while

ITA 252/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

made an adjustment of Rs.20,07,90,532 towards interest on Non-Convertible Debentures (NCD) issued to the AE. The AO passed the draft assessment order incorporating the TP adjustment and also made the following other additions:- a. Disallowance of salary expenses & Service fees ... Rs.31,30,405 f. Disallowance of depreciation on capitalized pre-operative cost brought forward from AY 2016-17 – Rs.8,72,579 Against the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections 4. before the DRP, which confirmed the TP adjustments. In pursuance of the directions of the DRP, the AO passed

M/S. Sulzer Tech India P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Addl./Jt./ Dy./ Asstt. CIT/ Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 633/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Saeana a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92CSection 92C(1)

international transaction pertaining to ‘Rendering of Tendering, Design & Engineering services and IT services’. In conformity, the Assessing Officer, inter-alia passed the draft assessment order under section 144C of the Act. 8. Vide directions dated 18/03/2021 issued under section 144C(5) of the Act, the learned Dispute Resolution Panel

M/S. Altisource Business Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 183/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitin G. Inamdar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

case was referred to Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) who made a TP adjustment of Rs.68,55,27,641/. The NFAC made a draft assessment order in which besides the TP adjustments, the following additions/disallowances were made on the corporate tax front: - i) Difference between revenue reported ... exchange loss – Rs.13,14,30,000/- iv) Miscellaneous expenditure – Rs. 93,50,000/- 3. The assessee filed objections before the DRP against the draft assessment order. The DRP after considering the submissions of the assessee gave partial relief. The DRP deleted the TP adjustment and on IT(TP)A No.183/Bang/2022

M/S Ingersoll-Rand Climate Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 729/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

goods 1,76,55,963 3 Installation and commissioning segment 5,29,35,751 7,51,03,559 5. The AO passed the draft assessment order dated 21.03.2016 with proposed TP adjustment of Rs.7,51,03,559/- and also proposed adjustment towards interest attributable to inventory of Rs.1

Torrecid India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7076/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit Circle 11(3)(1) Torrecid India Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Plot No.29, 30, 31, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Alindra, Savli Gidc, Vadodara, Vadodara–391775 Mk Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadct 4321 M

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neelu Jaggi, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92

adjustment of ₹ 4,59,06,891/- made by order under Section 92CA (3) of the Act on 14th October, 2016. 09. Consequently, a draft assessment order was passed on 25 November 2016 against which assessee filed objections before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel. 010. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel considered

Thyssenkrupp Industiral Solutions (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1274/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H. Jamshedji a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 40

treated the arm’s length price of international transaction pertaining to ‘Reimbursement of Expenses‟ as NIL. In conformity, the Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order dated 25/03/2015. 7. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) vide directions dated 14/12/2015, issued under section 144C(5) of the Act rejected the objections ... committed crystallised costs which are shown as provisions by the assessee, based on internal documentation maintained by the assessee. The Assessing Officer vide draft assessment order dated 25/03/2015 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) of the Act treated the liability for the cost overrun