“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

Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 179/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 40

Income for AY 2008-09 declaring total income of Rs. 38,55,73,480/- Further the case was selected for scrutiny and draft assessment order u/s 143(3) r w s 144C of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] was passed on 21.12.2011. Aggrieved by the draft

M/S. Himalaya Wellness Company (Formerly Known As the Himalaya Drug Company), Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 259/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.259/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Himalaya Wellness Company The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As The Himalaya Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bengaluru. Drug Company), Makali, Tumkur Road Bengaluru – 562 162. Pan : Aadft3025B. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT -DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 2(11)Section 92C

assessment on 16.04.2021. The A.O., apart from incorporating the TP adjustment suggested by TPO, also made the following corporate tax additions in the draft assessment order. Disallowance on account of Amount (in Rs.) Depreciation i.e. Re-characterisation of 8,23,073 plant and machinery Sales promotion expenses on account ... Doctors Total 3,82,09,463 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid draft assessment order, the assessee filed its objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) on 31.05.2021. The DRP issued directions vide its order dated 12.01.2022 u/s 144C(5) r.w.s. 144C(8) of the 3 IT(TP)A No.259/Bang/2022 M/s.Himalaya

Ametek Instruments India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 432/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.432/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S. Ametek Instruments India The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. Benguluru. Plot No.1, Epip Industrial Area, Divyashree Nr Enclave, 4Th Floor Block A, Whitefield Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aahca2869B. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT -DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

risk adjustments. The TP adjustment made in the SWD segment stood at Rs.2,84,.00,335. Pursuant to the TPO’s order, the draft assessment order was passed incorporating the above TP adjustment. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel

Enstage Software Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 260/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.260/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Enstage Software Private Limited, Dcit (Exemptions), Vs. 16/1, Wings, 2Nd Floor, Circle – 2(1)(1), Cambridge Road, Halsuru, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 008. Pan : Aaace 9963 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

services rendered by the assessee to its AE which the TPO determined a TP adjustment of Rs. 1,86,14,568/-. Initially, a draft assessment order dated 16.12.2019 came to be passed by the AO in which the aforesaid TP adjustment was incorporated, and beside the AO proposed a disallowance ... provision for bad and doubtful debts. Aggrieved, the Assessee filed its objections before the DRP which, vide its directions dated 25.02.2021 affirmed the draft assessment order in its entirety. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of the AO passed pursuant to the directions

Ibm India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 584/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 29Section 36(1)(vii)Section 50B

Ld.TPO. The Ld.TPO proposed transfer pricing adjustment to the ALP of assessee to the extent of Rs.264,24,78,755/-. Against the draft assessment order, assessee raised objections before the DRP and after the DRP directions, the TP adjustment was revised to Rs.262,46,21,532/-. The Ld.AO also computed

M/S Lenovo (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 35/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 92C

above, concluded the assessment proceedings as per the provisions of section 143(3) r.w. section 92CA of the Act and forwarded a Draft Assessment Order ("DAO") to Assessee determining the revised total income at INR 113,97,14,831 without setting off brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation, as against

M/S. Essity Hygiene and Health Ab, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, International Taxation-4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 778/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.778/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2017-18) M/S. Essity Hygiene & Health Ab, C/O. Sudit K. Parekh & Co. Llp, Urmi Axis, 6Th Floor, Famous Studio Lane, Dr.E.Moses Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 011. Pan: Aatcs-0899-K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- (International Taxation)- 4(2)(1), 17Th Floor, Room No.1708, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Jain ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Milind S. Chavan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan

Section 143(3)

Total Rs. 3,46,04,860/- The assessee did not offer any of the aforesaid receipts to tax. The Assessing Officer while passing draft assessment order dated 29/11/2019 held that the aforesaid receipts are liable to be taxed under India – Sweden DTAA @10% as FTS/Royalty. The assessee filed objections before

Hewlett-Packard Globalsoft Private Limtied, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 835/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

details called for. 2.3 Based on the information and explanation filed during the assessment proceedings and recommendations of the Ld.TPO, the Ld.AO, issued Draft Assessment Order ("DAO") under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Act dated March 30,2015 proposing the following adjustments: Amount Particulars (In INR) Returned income ... outside India. The Ld.AO disregarded the submissions made by the assessee in this regard during the assessment proceedings. 3.3 The Ld.AO in the draft assessment order held that foreign currency expenditure incurred by the assessee, amounting to Rs.3,63,98,79,000/- pertains to rendering technical services outside India

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Hewlett Packard Globalsoft Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 810/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Mapei Construction Products (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 283/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 283/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mapei Construction Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant A01 & B01, Solus Jain Commissioner Of Heights, Income Tax, 1St Floor, 1St Cross, Circle 4 (1)(2), J C Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 002. Pan: Aahcm0464A Appellant Respondent : Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, Assessee By Ca : Shri Janardhan, Addl. Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 24/03/2021 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Under National Assessment Centre, New Delhi, Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 143(3A) & (3B) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2016- 17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Jurisdiction 1.1. That The Learned Lower Authorities Erred In Law & On Facts In Referring The Case To The Learned Transfer Pricing

For Respondent: Shri S. Ramasubramanyam

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92C

Placed at page no. 66 to 78 of paper book). Subsequently, the learned assessing officer passed a draft assessment order u/s. 144C of the Act on 25.12.2019 determining the total income at Rs. 3,90,50,690/- after making other additions / disallowances along with the adjustment u/s. Page ... draft order is enclosed at page no. 62 to 66 of appeal memo). 2.2. The assessee challenged the above draft assessment order by filing the petition u/s. 144C of the Act before Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore (Form 35A is enclosed at page nos. 67 to 106 of appeal

United Breweries Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2569/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92B(1)

adjustment proposed U/ s 92CA. Showcause why the same should not be done.” 10. The TPO’s suggestion was incorporated in the draft assessment order. The assessee filed objections before the DRP, which upheld the order of the TPO with the following observations:- IT(TP)A No.2569/Bang/2017 Page

Immarsat Global Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation) Range-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1031/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

this aspect was specifically show caused to the assessee or not? The learned representative for the assessee submitted that after receipt of the draft assessment order, assessee had raised objections before the DRP in the following manner :- Assessment year: 2017-18 Page 23 of 25 “4.1 The Assessee

Factiva Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6455/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R

Section 13(3)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

DJCIPL in India is not liable to tax India. However, declining the contentions raised by the assessee the Assessing Officer (AO) in its draft assessment order proceeded to hold that payment made by DJCIPL to the assessee was taxable as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income

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

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

ITA 219/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 219/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Essilor India Pvt. Ltd., 10Th Floor, Prestige Trade The Deputy Tower, Commissioner Of 46, Palace Road, High Income Tax, Grounds Sampangi Rama Circle-2 (1)(1), Nagar, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aaace4623J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2021 For Assessment Year 2016-17 Passed By The Ld.Acit, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Essilor India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Eipl" Or The "Company" Or The "Appellant"), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax / Income Tax Officer

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA

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

made u/s 92CA to the Arm's Length Price, declared by the assessee in respect of international transactions. 3. Against the draft assessment order, the assessee raised objections before the DRP. The DRP upheld the action of the Ld.TPO in computing the excess of AMP incurred by assessee at Rs.46

M/S. L G Soft India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2412/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar, DR

Section 234ASection 92CSection 92E

date and therefore levy of interest u/s 234A of the Act is unwarranted and is to be deleted. Further, it was submitted that draft assessment order did not contain this interest computation. Hence, no ground is raised before the Ld. DRP. This ground is remitted to AO/TPO to consider chargeability

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1345/BANG/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA

Section 195Section 201(1)

DTAA. 23. For all the above reasons the AO brought to tax, the BT charges received by the Assessee from MCPL in his draft assessment order. The Assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) against the conclusions of the AO in the draft assessment order. The DRP upheld

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1344/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA

Section 195Section 201(1)

M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 205/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.205/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Tejas Networks Limited The Assistant Commissioner Plot No.25, Jp Software Park Of Income-Tax, Circle – 1, Ltu V. Bangalore. Electronic City Phase-I Hosur Road, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aabct1670M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.S.Annamalai, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Final Assessment Orders Dated 31.01.2017 & 23.11.2017, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-2013 & 2013- 2014. We Shall First Adjudicate It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-2013. It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 (Asst.Year 2012-2013) 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Design, Development, Manufacture Of Telecommunication Equipments. For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, The Return

For Appellant: Sri.S.Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR

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

determined the adjustment u/s 92CA of the I.T.Act at Rs.53,41,875 towards corporate guarantee commission. Pursuant to the TPO’s order, draft assessment order was passed on 01.10.2009 incorporating the above mentioned TP adjustment. Further, the A.O. had made several corporate tax additions / disallowances. Aggrieved by the draft assessment

M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 764/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sri.S.Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR

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

Levi Staruss (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 695/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 695/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Levi Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Sjr Cyber, 7Th Floor, Commissioner Of No. 22, Laskar Hosur Road, Income Tax, Adugodi, Circle 4 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 030. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacl3092Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 4 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Levi Strauss (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Appellant") Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao") Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961("The Act") On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 144C

Ld.TPO thus computed the margin of assessee at 7.78%. 2.4 On receipt of the transfer pricing order u/s. 92CA by the Ld.AO, draft assessment order was passed by making additional disallowances as under: 1) Disallowance of expenditure incurred on fixtures and stores interiors amounting ... free advance of Rs. 13 Lakhs paid to the Director Page 7 of 16 IT(TP)A No. 695/Bang/2016 2.5 Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, assessee filed objections before DRP. 2.6 The DRP after considering the submissions by assessee, rejected the arguments of assessee and confirmed the proposed addition