“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

Liebherr India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2169/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald

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

basis of the order passed by the TPO, the Assessing Officer proposed a transfer pricing addition of INR 7,04,81,698/- vide Draft Assessment Order, dated 20.03.2016, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) of the Act. In addition, the Assessing Officer also proposed ... wealth tax debited to the Profit & Loss Account. 6 Assessment Year: 2012-13 7. The Appellant filed objection before the DRP against the Draft Assessment Order and contended that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Appellant had provided detailed reasons justifying the adoption of aggregation of transaction approach

Clsa India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 4(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2385/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Clsa India Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 4(1), 8/F Dalamal House, Room No.640, Aayakar Nariman Point, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai–400 021 Mumbai–400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc2262K Assessee By : S/Shri Mukesh Butani, Ms. Karishma R. Phatarphekar, Mr. Harsh R Shah, Shreyash Shah Revenue By : Shri Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2022

For Appellant: S/Shri Mukesh ButaniFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR

proposed of ₹ 427,723,876/–. Accordingly an order u/s 92CA (3) of the act was passed on 14/10/2011. 08. Consequent to that the draft assessment order u/s 144C read with Section 143 (3) of the act was passed on 23/12/2011 wherein certain other corporate additions/disallowances were made and total income

M/S Rittal India Pvt Ltd, Doddaballapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2868/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Ramasubramaniam, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

Rs.29,60,30,584/-. The addition suggested by the TPO was incorporated in the draft order of assessment by the AO. Against the draft assessment order, assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP issued directions dated 4/7/2018 based on which, the impugned final order of assessment ... raised before the TPO.” 4. In so far as the aforesaid ground of appeal is concerned, the factual details are that in the draft assessment order of the assessment, the AO has observed that an international transaction exceeding Rs.15 crores was entered into by the assessee with

Shapoorji Pallonji Bumi Armada P.Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT -1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1353/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Us.

Section 154

recommended. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer proposed to make an ALP adjustment of Rs 131,40,70,214 in the draft assessment order. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The Dispute Resolution Panel, with detailed analysis in a very elaborate order, concluded that

Sp Armada Oil Exploration P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-3(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1352/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Us.

Section 154

M/S Greatship (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Range 5 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed

ITA 7001/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri M M GolvalaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

92CA(3) of the Act proposing aggregate transfer pricing adjustment of INR 36,85,04,867/-. 6. On 07.12.2018, the Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) of the Act proposing aforesaid transfer pricing adjustment of INR 36,85,04,867/-. Further ... return of income. 7. The Appellant filed objections before Dispute Resolution Panel-1, (WZ) [hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRP’] against the draft assessment order, dated 07.12.2018. The DRP granted relief to the Appellant by reducing the guarantee commission from 2.07% as determined by TPO to 1.25%. Apart from

Binod Kumar Singh, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 18 & 19, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1479/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M.Balaganeshआअसं.7721/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1429/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 Pan: Aabcs1728D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.1178/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 बनाम Vs. Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabcs1728D

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala,Sr.Advocate with Sh. HitenChandeFor Respondent: S/Sh. Vijay Kumar-CIT-DR and Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37(1)

/2014(िन.व. 2008-09 & 2009-10) ITA No.7721 /Mum/2012, 1429 & 1178/Mum/2014(A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10) above, the Assessing Officer (AO) in draft assessment order dated 27.12.2011 made disallowance of advertisements and sales promotion expenses Rs. 61,73,45,429/- and addition on account of unaccounted receiptsRs

Multi Screen Media P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1429/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala,Sr.Advocate with Sh. HitenChandeFor Respondent: S/Sh. Vijay Kumar-CIT-DR and Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37(1)

Asst CIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai vs. Multi Screen Media P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1178/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala,Sr.Advocate with Sh. HitenChandeFor Respondent: S/Sh. Vijay Kumar-CIT-DR and Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37(1)

Multi Screen Media P. Ltd ( Formerly Knon As Set India P.Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7721/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala,Sr.Advocate with Sh. HitenChandeFor Respondent: S/Sh. Vijay Kumar-CIT-DR and Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37(1)

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6994/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 44C

Article 25(2) of the then Indo Korean tax treaty do not come into play. The Assessing Officer proceeded to frame a draft assessment order accordingly. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee raised the objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel, but without any success. The stand ... assessed to tax provides for a lower rate of taxation, the same would be applicable‖. In effect thus, the Assessing Officer‘s draft assessment order indicated that while no deduction of PE-GE interest payment was allowed in the computation of income attributable to the PE, the same amount, nevertheless

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6993/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 90

Article 25(2) of the then Indo Korean tax treaty do not come into play. The Assessing Officer proceeded to frame a draft assessment order accordingly. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee raised the objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel, but without any success. The stand ... assessed to tax provides for a lower rate of taxation, the same would be applicable”. In effect thus, the Assessing Officer’s draft assessment order indicated that while no deduction of PE-GE interest payment was allowed in the computation of income attributable to the PE, the same amount, nevertheless

Mindteck (India) Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 252/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.252/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mindteck India Ltd., Vs. Dcit, A.M.R. Tech Park, Block 1, 3Rd Floor, Circle – 4(1)(1), No.664, 23/24, Hosur Main Road, Begur, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 068. Pan : Aaach 1072 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. S. Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

provision of SWD services by the assessee to its AE. 6. The assessee filed objections before the Disputes Resolution Panel (DRP) against the draft assessment order passed by the AO wherein the addition suggested by the TPO as adjustment consequent to determination of ALP was added to the total income

M/S. Walvoil Fluid Power (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1839/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

respect of Manufacturing segment, ECB interest paid and fee for technical services. Based on TPO's order, the AO passed a Draft Assessment order dated 22.11.2010 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Act incorporating the adjustment to the ALP. The assessee filed its objections before

Edelweiss Commodities Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7475/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

metals, agricultural products and other commodities; (d) acting as sourcing agent for a range of agricultural commodities. 4. The Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order making various additions. The assessee has filed objections before learned DRP. After passing of the order by learned DRP, the Assessing Officer passed final assessment

Aker Powergas P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee and quash the assessment order

ITA 7211/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Aker Powergas P. Ltd. Income–Tax, Circle–15(1)(1), Powergas House, 83 I Think Room No.470, Aayakar Techno Campus Kanjur Marg Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Rd, (E), Mumbai–400 042 Mumbai–400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd1981E Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ms. Shraddha Jain, Ars Revenue By : Shri Vivek A Perampurna, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.0222

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Vivek A Perampurna, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14CSection 156Section 244ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

July 2021 by which it has challenged the validity of order as Under:- i. The assessing officer has erred in passing the draft assessment order dated 21st of December 2016 without following the procedures laid down in Section 144C of The Income Tax Act 1961 (The Act), and therefore ... penalty notice dated 21 December 2016 u/s 274 read with Section 271 (1) (C) of the act along with the draft assessment order thereby Aker Powergas P. Ltd; A.Y. 2013–14 not following the procedures laid down u/s 144C of the act. iii. The appellant submits that the draft assessment

Vmware Software India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2127/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2127/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Vmware Software India The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Kalyani Magnum Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(2) V. Bangalore. Block-I, 3Rd Floor 165/2 Doraisanipalya, Iim Post Bannerghatta Road Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aaccv4573E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Suryanaranayana, Advocate Respondent By : Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit -Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 17.06.2022 Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2022 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 24.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Issues Raised In The Appeal Are As Follows:- (I) Validity Of The Impugned Final Assessment Order; (Ii) Transfer Pricing (Tp) Adjustment Of Rs.26,85,43,457 Made By The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) Towards The International Transactions Of Provision Of Contrct Software Development & Information Technology Enabled Services To The Assessee’S Associated Enterprises (Aes); (Iii) Addition Of Rs.7,62,39,388 Being The Alleged Suppressed Income Of The Assessee; & 2 It(Tp)A No.2127/Bang/2017. M/S.Vmware Software India Private Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.T.Suryanaranayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT -DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

respect of which an adjustment of Rs.15,58,34,882 was made by the TPO. Pursuant to the TPO’s order, a draft assessment order dated 24.03.2016 was passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) in which he incorporated the aforesaid TP adjustments. Further, the AO made an addition of Rs.6 ... directed the AO to make an addition of Rs.7,62,39,388 instead of the sum proposed by him in the draft assessment order. The DRP did not grant any relief on the assessee’s claim for depreciation on the basis that the same did not relate to a variation

Avana Global Fzco, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation) Circle-1(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1079/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1079/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2017-18) Avana Global Fzco, D-301-305, Level 3, Tower Ii, Seawoods Grand Central, Plot No.R1, Sector-40, Nerul Node Seawoodsdarave, Navi Mumbai 400 706. Pan: Aadcb-4021-A ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- (International Taxation),Circle – 1(1)(2) Mumbai, Room No.528, 5Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Poras Kaka, Sr. Advocate With Shri Divesh Chawla, Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Milind S. Chavan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/06/2022 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Poras Kaka, Sr. Advocate with Shri Divesh Chawla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan

Section 44B

business. Hence, made addition by applying Rule-10 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [ herein after referred to ‘the Rules’] Aggrieved by the draft assessment order dated 03/12/2019 the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (in short ‘DRP’). The DRP vide directions dated 25/03/2021 rejected the objections

M/S Unisys India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, grounds 10 and 11 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2096/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Aliasger Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Unisys India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, grounds 10 and 11 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2025/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Aliasger Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 153Section 153BSection 92C