← 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 Marlabs Innovations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 457/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Marlabs Innovations Pvt. Ltd., (Successor Of Marlabs Software Pvt. Ltd.), The Deputy 14Th Floor, Citrine Block-4, Commissioner Of Bagmane World Technology Income Tax, Centre, Circle – 4(1)(2), Marathalli Outer Ring Vs. Bangalore. Road, Mahadevapura, Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan: Aaccm6627Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri L. Bharath, Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28/12/2018 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 4(1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Various Issues On The Transfer Pricing Adjustment Made In Respect Of The International Transactions Between Assessee & Its Ae.

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(31)Section 394

Principal Officer M/s Suzuki Powertrain India Limited (Now known as M/s Maruti Suzuki India Limited)”  On March 11, 2016, the AO passed draft assessment order in the name of SPIL.  On April 12, 2016, the Assessee filed objections against the proposed additions in the draft assessment order before the Dispute ... successor in interest of erstwhile SPIL.  On October 14, 2016, DRP gave its directions to the AO on the objections to the draft assessment order of the AO.  On October 31, 2016, the AO passed the final order in the name of SPIL (amalgamated with MSIL). Page

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

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

ITA 2579/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2579/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Subex Ltd., The Deputy Rmz Ecoworld, Commissioner Of Outer Ring Road, Income Tax, Devarabisanahalli, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcs9255R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Erroneous Transfer Pricing Adjustments Arising From Interest On Trade Receivables 1.1. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle - 6(1)(2), Bangalore (Learned Assessing Officer' Or 'Ld. Ao') / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Circle - 1(3)(1) ('Learned Transfer Pricing Officer' Or 'Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

professional charges for non-deduction of TDS, the Ld.AO upheld the addition in the hands of the assessee as proposed in the draft assessment order. Page 5 of 9 IT(TP)A No. 2579/Bang/2019 2.5 Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal

Sigma Aldrich Chemicals Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, grounds 22 to 22

ITA 596/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.418/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.596/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Sigma Aldrich Chemicals The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No.12, Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Bommasandra-Jagani Link Road, Bommasandra Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aahcs1882L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Tata Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Final Assessment Order Dated 19.01.2015 & 28.01.2016 For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012, Respectively. Common Issues Are Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Sri.Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 153BSection 92C

with the order of the TPO. After receipt of the order from the TPO determining ALP, the assessing officer is to forward a draft assessment order to the assessee, who has an option either to file his acceptance of the variation of the assessment or file his objection

Sigma Aldrich Chemicals Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, grounds 22 to 22

ITA 418/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.418/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.596/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Sigma Aldrich Chemicals The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No.12, Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Bommasandra-Jagani Link Road, Bommasandra Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aahcs1882L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Tata Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Final Assessment Order Dated 19.01.2015 & 28.01.2016 For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012, Respectively. Common Issues Are Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Sri.Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 153BSection 92C

with the order of the TPO. After receipt of the order from the TPO determining ALP, the assessing officer is to forward a draft assessment order to the assessee, who has an option either to file his acceptance of the variation of the assessment or file his objection

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

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

ITA 198/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

made an adjustment of Rs.6,46,60,083 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 u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act – Rs.14 ... Disallowance of depreciation of capitalized salary expenses – Rs.36,82,829. c. Disallowance of pre-operative expenses – Rs.24,58,440. 4. Against the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the DRP, which confirmed the TP adjustments and also the disallowances listed in (i) & (ii) above. With regard

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

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

ITA 197/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

made an adjustment of Rs.6,46,60,083 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 u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act – Rs.14 ... Disallowance of depreciation of capitalized salary expenses – Rs.36,82,829. c. Disallowance of pre-operative expenses – Rs.24,58,440. 4. Against the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the DRP, which confirmed the TP adjustments and also the disallowances listed in (i) & (ii) above. With regard

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

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

ITA 196/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

made an adjustment of Rs.6,46,60,083 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 u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act – Rs.14 ... Disallowance of depreciation of capitalized salary expenses – Rs.36,82,829. c. Disallowance of pre-operative expenses – Rs.24,58,440. 4. Against the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the DRP, which confirmed the TP adjustments and also the disallowances listed in (i) & (ii) above. With regard

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

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

ITA 195/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

made an adjustment of Rs.6,46,60,083 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 u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act – Rs.14 ... Disallowance of depreciation of capitalized salary expenses – Rs.36,82,829. c. Disallowance of pre-operative expenses – Rs.24,58,440. 4. Against the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the DRP, which confirmed the TP adjustments and also the disallowances listed in (i) & (ii) above. With regard

Owens Corning Inc., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT(International Tax)Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 741/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla a/wFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234BSection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

entities. The said amount totalling to Rs. 2,86,00,164 was claimed as not taxable by the assessee. The Assessing Officer vide draft assessment order dated 18/12/2019 passed under section 144C of the Act, after noting that similar issue was discussed in detail in assessment order of earlier years ... employees of OCIPL, which is now reimbursed by OCIPL. In the absence of any details in support of the claim, Assessing Officer vide draft assessment order added the amount of Rs. 23,51,162 to the total income of the assessee. Learned DRP vide Owens Corning Inc. ITA No.741/Mum./2021

Michael Page International Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (Intl. Taxn.)-3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 144/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 9(1)

satisfied that the assessee has under reported its income. 4. When the stand of the assessee, as noted above, was stated in the draft assessment order, the assessee raised grievances before the Dispute Resolution Panel, but without any success. The Dispute Resolution Panel confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer

Ntt Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-2(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1212/MUM/2021[AADC4348L]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022
Section 143(3)

Income Tax Act, 1961 are hereby initiated. 5. When the stand of the assessee, as noted above, was stated in the draft assessment order, the assessee raised grievances before the Dispute Resolution Panel, but without any success. The Dispute Resolution Panel confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer, and declined ... case based, but permanent in nature. 3.6 Based on the facts of the case, and the reasons cited by the A.O. in the draft assessment order, we hold that the receipt in question certainly fall in the category which qualifies to be FTS under the Act and also under article

M Pallonji Shipping P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5875/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem.Pallonji Shipping Pvt Vs. Dcit – 5(2)(2) Ltd.46A Veetrag Mumbai Chambers, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecm4615L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dr.K. Shivaram & Shri Rahul Hakani.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Vatslaaa Jha.Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Dr.K. Shivaram, &For Respondent: Ms.Vatslaaa Jha.CIT.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

subsequent years. 6. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) after receiving the TPO order u/sec92CA (3) dated 30.09.2016 has passed the draft assessment order with (i) the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 13,38,78,991/- (ii) M. Pallonji Shipping Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. the addition in respect of foreign exchange gain ... r.w.s 144C(1) of the Act dated 30.12.2016. 7. Whereas the assessee has filed the objections in Form.no. 35A against the draft assessment order with the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), where the DRP after considering the objections and findings of the TPO has issued the directions and passed the order

Sandisk India Device Design Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-6, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 288/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 288/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sandisk India Device Design Centre Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 143/1, Amani Bellandur Khane Village, The Joint Prestige Excelsior, Commissioner Of Prestige Tech Park, Income-Tax Marathalli – Sarjapur Outer (Osd), Ring Road, Circle 6 (1)(1), Vs. Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaics9204M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi On 30.04.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CA
Section 92C(3)Section 92D

assessee. 2.14 Thus the total adjustment proposed by the Ld.TPO are as under: 2.15 On receipt of the Ld.TPO, the Ld.AO passed draft assessment order by making further addition which are as under. 1. Assets received free of cost or on loan from AE disallowed u/s. 28(iv) – Rs.57 ... disallowed u/s. 40(a)(i) – Rs.10,22,81,802/- 3. Bonding and debonding charges disallowed u/s. 37 – Rs.19,51,209/-. 2.16 Against the draft assessment order, assessee filed objections before the DRP. 2.17 The DRP partly considered the objections of the assessee wherein certain comparables sought for exclusion by assessee

M/S Harman International (India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 49/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.49/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Harman Connected Services Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation India Private Limited, Income Tax, 4A, Jupiter, Prestige Technology Park, Circle - 3(1)(2), Sarjapur, Marathahalli Road, Bengaluru. Kadubeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan: Aacch 1585 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

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

segment and Rs.11,36,10,183/- in the trading segment, aggregating to total TP adjustment of Rs.19,70,91,838/-. 5. Initially, a draft assessment order dated 15.12.2017 came to be passed by the AO in which, inter alia, the aforesaid TP adjustment was incorporated. The AO also proposed

M/S. Bateman Engineering (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1139/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Years : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R. Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 154Section 92C

international transactions. The TPO made an adjustment of Rs.4,29,96,646 as Transfer Pricing adjustment, based on which the AO passed the draft assessment order. Since the assessee exercised the option of appeal before the CIT(Appeals), it requested the AO vide letter dated 24.12.2011 to complete the assessment ... insurance and bank guarantee charges and secondment of employees as intra-group in nature. Page 6 of 8 Subsequently, the AO issued a draft assessment order under section 143(3) read with 144C, dated 25/11/2011, in terms of proviso to section 92((3) of the Act proposing a transfer pricing

Loreal India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2016-17 is treated as partly allowed

ITA 802/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

crore on the goodwill of ₹ 8.27 crore at 25% of half of the year. 26. The assessing officer while passing the draft assessment order issued show cause notice as to why net current asset were taken at a negative value of Rs. 3.14 crore and also why depreciation ... Oreal India Private Limited 27. The reply furnished by assessee was not accepted by the assessing officer. The assessing officer while passing the draft assessment order on 28th December 2018 treated the goodwill recorded by assessee is at ₹ 8.27 crore as an unexplained investment under section

L' Oreal India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre/ Dy CIT-Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2016-17 is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1198/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

crore on the goodwill of ₹ 8.27 crore at 25% of half of the year. 26. The assessing officer while passing the draft assessment order issued show cause notice as to why net current asset were taken at a negative value of Rs. 3.14 crore and also why depreciation ... Oreal India Private Limited 27. The reply furnished by assessee was not accepted by the assessing officer. The assessing officer while passing the draft assessment order on 28th December 2018 treated the goodwill recorded by assessee is at ₹ 8.27 crore as an unexplained investment under section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Altisource Business Solutions India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 164/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 162/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Altisource Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Pritech Park, 3Rd & 5Th Floors Of Wing A & The Deputy 4Th Floor Of Wing B, Commissioner Of Block No. 12, Pritech Park, Income Tax, Survey No. 51-64/4, Circle – 1 (1)(2), Bellandur Village, Bangalore. Vs. Sarjapur Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaaco9467A Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 164/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13 (By Revenue) : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Susan Dolores George Revenue By Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 30-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against Order Dated 31.08.2017 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 92C(3)(a)

under ITES segment it restricted the working capital adjustment at 0.32%. Upon receipt of the order u/s. 92CA, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order by making further disallowance, the details of which are as under: Amount Sl. No. Particulars (in Rs.) Transfer pricing adjustments under ... assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), against the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C on 31.03.2016, post the draft assessment order. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering various submissions by the assessee rejected the objections in respect of various comparables, that was selected. The Ld.CIT

Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 852/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

order dated 21.1. 2013 u/s. 92CA of the Act making a TP adjustment of Rs 1,209,858,772. Accordingly, the AO passed draft assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated 19.3.2013 after making certain disallowances on corporate tax listed below and computed the total income

Joint Commisioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Texas Instruments India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 831/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

order dated 21.1. 2013 u/s. 92CA of the Act making a TP adjustment of Rs 1,209,858,772. Accordingly, the AO passed draft assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated 19.3.2013 after making certain disallowances on corporate tax listed below and computed the total income