“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

M/S. Hp Computing and Printing Systems India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234B

provision for gratuity 3.2 The Ld.AO erred in making an adjustment of INR 8,187,096 despite not proposing the same in the draft assessment order and after considering the submission made during the assessment proceeding. 4 Relief 4.1 The Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant

Cisco Systems Capital (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 321/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

learned TPO had proposed certain corporate tax and transfer pricing adjustments to the returned income of the Appellant which were incorporated in the draft assessment order dated April 26, 2021, which are as follows! Disallowance of depreciation claimed by the Appellant on a) assets leased out under finance lease arrangement

M/S. Sap Labs India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-6, Bangalore

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

ITA 606/BANG/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., No. 138, Export It(Tp)A No. Promotion Industrial 2008-09 606/Bang/2021 Park, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aafcs3649P The Joint M/S. Sap Labs India Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, (Successor To M/S. Special Range – 6, Success Factors Bangalore. Business Solutions It(Tp)A No. India Pvt. Ltd.), 2015-16 2510/Bang/2019 No. 138, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aafcs3649P

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CA

Section 3(1)(b)

shortfall. Page 16 IT(TP)A Nos. 606/Bang/2021 & 2510/Bang/2019 6.5 On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order by incorporating the transfer pricing adjustment. 6.6 On receipt of the draft assessment order dated 10/12/2018, assessee filed objections before the DRP. 6.7 The DRP upheld

On Semiconductor Technology India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 291/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri.Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

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

dated 30.10.2019 passed u/s 92CA of the I.T.Act, determined the TP adjustment of Rs.4,58,98,195. Pursuant to the TPO’s order, draft assessment order was passed. The assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) against the draft assessment order disputing the adjustment made under Software Development

M/S. Success Factors Business Solutions India Private Limited (Now Merged With Sap Labs India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore

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

ITA 2510/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CA

Section 3(1)(b)

M/S Denso Kirloskar Industries Pvt.Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 73/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

entity level by taking into consideration the unrelated party transactions, instead of restricting the adjustment to the value of international transactions. The draft assessment order was passed by the AO incorporating the above TP adjustment. The DRP rejected the objections of the assessee and upheld the TP adjustment. Consequently

ACIT Cir 1, Thane vs. Lanxess India P.Ltd, Thane

ITA 2788/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Lanxess India Private Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, Circle 1, Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Vs. 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. College, Midc, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-(West)-400604. Thane. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess India Private Limited, Circle 1, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. 16- Vs. Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, College, Midc, Thane. Thane-(West)-400604 Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pratik Shah/For Respondent: Mr. V.K. Agarwal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

facts, in law and in circumstances of the present case, On the facts, in law and in circumstances of the present case, the draft assessment order dated the draft assessment order dated 28 March 2013 passed for AY 28 March 2013 passed for AY 2009-10 under section ... 2788/M/2014 Act, 1961 (Act') and all proceedings consequent to Act, 1961 (Act') and all proceedings consequent to such draft such draft assessment order including final assessment order including final assessment order passed u/s assessment order passed u/s 143(3) read with 144C(13) of the Act dated 26 February

Lanxess India P.Ltd, Thane vs. Asst CIT Cir 1, Thane

ITA 2628/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Pratik Shah/For Respondent: Mr. V.K. Agarwal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Toyota Boshoku Automotive India Private Limited, Ramanagaram vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 362/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 92D

No.362/Bang/2021 Page 13 of 40 IT(TP)A No.362/Bang/2021 Page 14 of 40 2.2 After receipt of the TPO order the AO passed draft assessment order u/s 144C of the IT Act, on 6/12/2019. The AO further observed from the profit and loss account that he ahs claimed expenditure relating ... paid and added into the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO assessed the income @Rs.12,59,55,914/- and completed the draft assessment order. IT(TP)A No.362/Bang/2021 Page 16 of 40 2.4 Against the draft assessment order passed by the AO, the assessee failed objections before

M/S Te Connectivity India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2680/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92

determine the ALP. The TPO made several TP adjustments to the tune of Rs.50,21,44,842. The AO passed the draft assessment order incorporating the TP adjustment and in addition, made the following disallowances towards corporate tax:- (i) Disallowance of depreciation – Rs.4,39,35,813 (ii) Disallowance of commission ... arrangement. 29. That the Learned AO/ learned DRP has added back the aforementioned claims without providing cogent reasons for the same in the draft assessment order. IT(TP)A No.2680/Bang/2017 Page 48 of 50 30. That in proposing the aforementioned disallowance, the Learned AO/ learned DRP has disregarded Form 3CEA

M/S. Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are treated as partly allowed

ITA 773/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.773 & 2041/Bang/2016 Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, C.A (A.R)For Respondent: Shri Dilip, Advocate, Standing

Section 10ASection 143(3)

leasing and financing of computer hardware, maintenance of computer equipment. It also provides software related services. The AO proposed various additions in the draft assessment orders of both the years, which were objected to by the assessee before Ld DRP. After receipt of directions from Ld DRP, the assessing officercompleted ... does not require any adjudication. 4. In Ground no.2, the assessee is questioning the wisdom of the AO in placing reliance on the “draft assessment order” passed for AY 2009-10 in drawing adverse conclusions in AY 2010-11. However, at the time of 3 IBM India

M/S.Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2041/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.773 & 2041/Bang/2016 Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, C.A (A.R)For Respondent: Shri Dilip, Advocate, Standing

Section 10ASection 143(3)

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Ibm India (P) Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1228/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.773 & 2041/Bang/2016 Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, C.A (A.R)For Respondent: Shri Dilip, Advocate, Standing

Section 10ASection 143(3)

India Medtronic Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10 (1)91), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.54 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7935/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7935/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2015-16) India Medtronic Private Limited, 1241, Solitaire Corporate Park, Bldg.No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri-Ghatkopar Link Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan:Aaaci-4227-Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-10(1)(1), Room No.209, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajan R. Vora, C.A With Shri Nikhil Tiwari ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Yogesh Kamath, Cit-Dr With S/Shri Satya Pinisetty/R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Assessment Order Dated 25/10/2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’].

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. Vora, C.A with Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamath, CIT-DR with S/Shri Satya Pinisetty/R.A.Dhyani

Section 143(3)

expenses 1,13,76,39,711 Total Adjustment 1,42,18,83,566 3.2 The Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order dated 28/12/2018, inter-alia, making various additions/disallowances apart from the adjustment proposed by the TPO. The assessee filed objections before Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP). The DRP vide directions

Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1382/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhvan Oord Dredging & Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Marine Contractors Bv Income-Tax (International 201, 2Nd Floor, Central Taxation)-4(3)(1) Plaza, 166 Cst Road, 16Th Floor, Air India Kalina, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400098 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaach3500M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: K.C. Kanojiya

Section 144C(13)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

organization, etc. For providing such services to the Indian subsidiary assessee received a sum of` 9,72,01,066. While framing the draft assessment order, the Assessing Officer treated the aforesaid amount received by the assessee as royalty as per Article–12 of India– Netherland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA

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

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

ITA 250/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.250/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 & Sa No.22/Bang/2022 M/S.Sprinklr India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, East Wing Building Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(2) V. Bengaluru. No.3, Block B, Divyashree 770 Town Centre, Off Hal Airport Road, Yamlur P.O. Bengaluru – 560 037. Pan : Aaqcs9370N. (Appellant/Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Tata Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumeer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2022 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 18.02.2022. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Sprinklr Us. It Provides Software Development Services To Its Parent Company. For The Assessment Year 2017-2018, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 31.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.24,99,66,540. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Issued. During The 2 It(Tp)A No.250/Bang/2022 & Sa 22/B/2022. M/S.Sprinklr India Private Limited. Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Matter 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 Associated Enterprises (Aes). The Tpo Vide His Order U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act Dated 27.01.2021 Determined The Tp Adjustment Of Rs.12,63,71,153. The Details Of The Tp Adjustment Made By The Tpo Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumeer Singh Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 92C

Market Support Service (MSS) 74,16,128 12,63,71,153 Total 3. Pursuant to the TPO’s order, the draft assessment order was passed on 07.04.2021 by incorporating the TP adjustment proposed by the TPO. 4. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute

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

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

ITA 206/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 206/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Epson India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy 12Th Floor, The Milenia, Commissioner Of Tower A, Income Tax, No. 1,Murphy Road, Circle 2 (1)(1), Ulsoor, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 008. Pan: Aaace7858F Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 25/03/2021 Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General Ground 1. The Orders Passed By Learned Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax / Income- Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Referred As "Ao" For Brevity), Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tp) — 1(2)(1), Bangalore (Hereinafter Referred As "Tpo" For Brevity) & The Honourable Drp-1

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha

Services Total Adjustment u/s Rs. 34,16,14,912/- 92CA 2.10 On receipt of the order under 92CA, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order incorporating the proposed adjustment on Page 10 of 30 IT(TP)A No. 206/Bang/2021 10/12/2019. On receipt of the draft assessment order by the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Cerner Healthcare Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 218/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A Nos. 217 & 218/Bang/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Cerner Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Ground Floor, The Deputy Wing B, Block H2, Commissioner Of Mountain Ash, Income Tax, Manyata Embassy Circle – 2(1)(1), Business Park, Bangalore. Vs. Nagawara, Bengaluru – 560 045. Pan: Aaccc3795R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sumit Khurana, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Revenue Against Two Separate Orders Both Dated 28/11/2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15. Assessment Year 2013-14: “1. Whether The Cit(A) Was Correct In Holding That Payments Made By The Assessee To M/S Cerner Usa For The Employers Executing Certain Works For The Assessee Company Would Not Amount To Income In The Hands Of M/S Cerner India & No Tds Was Liable To Be Made By Treating

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana, CA

Section 40Section 92C

01/09/2016, wherein, no adjustment was made in respect of the international transactions. On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO while passing draft assessment order made disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act in respect of the expenses claimed as reimbursement of cost amounting to Rs.5

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Cerner Healthcare Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 217/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana, CA

Section 40Section 92C

M/S Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 107/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 107/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Subex Ltd., Rmz Ecoworld, The Income Tax Outer Ring Road, Officer, Devarabisanahalli, Ward – 6 (1)(4), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcs9255R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/10/2018 Passed By Ld.Ito, Ward – 6(1)(4), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment & Reference To Learned Transfer Pricing Officer Are Bad In Law 1.1. The Income Tax Officer. Ward — 6(1)(4), Bangalore (Learned Assessing Officer Or 'Ld. Ao') Erred In Making A Reference To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Transfer Pricing —Range 2(2)(1) (Learned Transfer Pricing Officer' Or 'Ld. Tpo'), Inter Alia, Since He Has Not Recorded

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA

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

points. The Ld.TPO computed the proposed adjustment under 3 heads as follows: 2.8 On receipt of the order u/s. 92CA, the Ld.AO passed draft assessment order by making further additions in the hands of the assessee that are as follows: Addition ... receipt of the draft assessment order dated 26/12/2017, assessee filed objections before the DRP. The DRP after considering various submissions of the assessee, rejected the objections partly. The DRP partly considered the claim of the assessee by directing the Ld.AO to compute the adjustment invoicewise with reference to amounts received