“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

Emerson Electric Company (India)Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(2) (1) Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Mumbai

ITA 933/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: ShriDhanesh Bafna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra, D.R

Section 144Section 153Section 92C

being barred by limitation in terms of section 92CA(sA) r.w.s 153 of the Act, the action of the AO in passing the draft assessment order dated 05 December 2019 by invoking section 1440 of the Act is without jurisdiction and thus all proceedings consequent to the draft assessment order ... final assessment order illegal, bad in law, null and void and liable to be quashed. The Appellant prays that the TP order, draft assessment order and the final assessment order are bad in law, null and void and liable to be quashed. 3. Engineering and related services (Engineering) segment

First Credit Ites P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt.Dy/CIT/ITO, National E -Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 1183/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am First Credit Ites P. Ltd. The Addl. Commissioner Of D-211, Ghatkopar Indl. Estate, Income-Tax Officer Behind R-City Mall, National E-Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Vs. Centre, Ghatkopar West, Delhi-110003 Mumbai-400 086 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aabcf5210B Assessee By : Shri Sunil Moti Lala, Ar Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Moti Lala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

thus, adjustment of ₹2,21,23,649/- was made by order under section 92CA(3) passed on 30th October 2019. 05. Consequently, a draft assessment order was passed and assessee filed objection before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel after considering the objection of the assessee

Blackstone Fp Capital Partners Mauritius V Ltd., Mauritius vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation) Circle-1(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 981/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 154

dated 5th April 2021 as “on perusal of the (said) order, it was noticed that various scanned documents mentioned and incorporated in the draft assessment order dated 28.12.2019 could not be incorporated in the final assessment order….”. 2. Learned representatives, however, fairly accept that the core issue in appeal

Blackstone Fp Capital Partners Mauritius V Ltd., Mauritius vs. DCIT Intl Tax Cir.1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1725/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 154

Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu)-Circle, Mumbai

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

ITA 30/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Shipping Corporation Of India Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax (L.T.U.)-Circle-2, 245, Shipping House, Madam Cama Vs. 29Th Floor, Centre-2, World Road, Nariman Point, Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400006. Pan No. Aaact 1524 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vinay Deshmane, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Vijay Shankar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 115VSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253(1)Section 28

Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions. After getting order of Transfer Pricing Officer, the Ld. Assessing Officer issued a draft assessment order on 20.12.2017 wherein, he following the finding of the Assessing Officer in earlier The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. 5 years, excluded the reimbursement of over head ... made other adjustment including disallowance of deduction of administrative expenses amounting to Rs.10,60,21,624/-. 4. Aggrieved with the adjustments proposed in draft assessment order, the assessee filed objection before the Ld. DRP. Pursuant to the direction of the Ld. DRP, the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order

M/S Aci Worldwide Solutions Private Ltd., Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground 11 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 106/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.106/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Aci Worldwide Solutions The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. Bangalore. No.9, Salarpuria Cambridge Mall Bangalore – 560 008. Pan : Aaacv7566R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 13.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 12.05.2022 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 31.01.2011 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Software Development Services & Sales & Marketing Support Services To Its Associated Enterprises (Aes). The Services Are Provided On Cost Plus Basis. The Assessee Is Also Engaged In Software Distribution Activities. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Reference Was Made To The Tpo To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of International Transactions Undertaken By The Assessee With Its Aes. The 2 It(Tp)A No.106/Bang/2022. M/S.Aci Worldwide Solutions Private Limited. Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.01.2021 U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act, Proposed The Following Tp Adjustments:-

For Appellant: Sri.Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Software Distribution 5 comparables with Rs.4,56,73,477 segment mean of 17.85% Total Rs.14,02,20,085 2.1 The AO passed the draft assessment order u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act on 31.03.2021, incorporating the TP adjustment of Rs.14,02,20,085 as made by the TPO. Aggrieved ... draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the DRP on 21.04.2021. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, an order giving effect to it was passed by the TPO dated 21.01.2022 making the following TP adjustments: Name of the Segment Average margin TP adjustment Software development 20 comparables with

M/S. Ocwen Financial Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 5, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2411/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2411/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ocwen Financial Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Pritech Park, Block 12, The Joint Commissioner Unit 2, 5B & 6A Floors, Of Income-Tax, Bellandur Village, Special Range-5, Sarjapur Marathahalli Bangalore. Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaaco3764E Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Vasudevan & Assessee By Ms. Rashmi, Advocates : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24/09/2019 Passed By The Ld.Jcit, Special Range-5, Bangalore Under Section 143 (3) R.W.S 144C (13) Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. Transfer Pricing The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan &

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 92C

risk adjustment and computed the shortfall at Rs.32,97,03,960/-. 2.8 On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order, by making the addition of the transfer pricing adjustment proposed. Subsequently, order under section 154 of the Act, was passed, wherein, the transfer pricing

Capgemini India P.Ltd, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT Cir 10(2), Mumbai

In the result ground number 12 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

ITA 4727/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, Income Tax, Army & Navy Bldg, Circle 10(2), 3Rd Floor, R. No. 475, Vs. 148, M.G. Road, Ayakar Bhavan, Fort, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaack2632B Appellant By : Shri M M Golvala, Ar Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri M M Golvala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 1O

transfer pricing adjustment as per order under section 92CA(3) of the Act dated 31st December, 2013. 08. Accordingly, the draft assessment order was passed on 13th March, 2014 where several additions were made and total income was determined at ₹144,06,06,540/-. 09. Assessee did not file ... objection before the learned DRP against the draft assessment order and therefore final assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act was passed on 26th May, 2014. Learned Assessing Officer over and above the transfer pricing adjustment made following additions; i. Disallowance

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, grounds 20 to 23 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 294/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkaihalli, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 40

Rs.83,55,708 in respect of interest on delayed receipt of trade receivables from its AEs. Pursuant to the TPO’s order, a draft assessment order dated 31.12.2019 was passed by the AO in which the aforesaid TP adjustment made by the TPO was incorporated. As regards corporate tax issue ... concerned, the A.O. in draft assessment order proposed disallowance of Rs.50,20,109 by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the I.T.Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP vide its directions dated 25.03.2021, partly allowed the objection raised

M/S. Shell Information Technology International B.V., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1245/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, CIT–DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2(24)Section 234B

issue which is recorded in Para 53 as under: "5.3 Discussions and directions of DRP 5.3.1 We have considered the draft assessment order, submissions of assessee and material. We have seen that under the Master Services Agreement, the assessee SITI BV has furnished technical and advisory services to various clients

M/S. Iqvia Ag (Previously Known As 'Ims Ag', Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1203/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 9Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

scientific work and even otherwise there is no grant of any copyright by the assessee to its customers. 5. The Assessing Officer vide draft assessment order dated 28.11.2019, passed under section 144C(1) of the Act did not agree with the submissions filed by the assessee and held that

Wills Towers Watson India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1140/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Towers Watson India Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of 511/512, Solitaire Corporate Park, Income Tax, Circle-11(3)-1, 151, Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Room No. 427, 4Th Floor Aayakar Andheri (East) , Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400093. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 2955 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Nikhil Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 92CSection 92C(4)

value of international transactions declared by the assessee. In view of the adjustment proposed by the Ld. TPO, the Assessing Officer issued draft assessment order to the assessee incorporating the adjustment proposed by the Ld. TPO and also made disallowance of interest on TDR amounting to Rs.4

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 626/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.837/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.626/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.2031/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Bostik India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.124/4 & 124/4A, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(2) V. Bangalore. Kachanayakanahalli, Off: Hosur Road, Bommasandra Post, Anekal Taluk Bangalore – 560 099. Pan : Aabcb4627N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.C.J.Brito, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Three Final Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2011-2012, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014. Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Sri.C.J.Brito, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

intra-group services identified by the TPO is treated as Rs.Nil. 8. Consequent to the TPO’s order, the AO served a draft assessment order with TP additions made by the TPO. Other than the TP adjustment, there were no other additions or modifications in the draft order ... three relevant assessment years. 9. Aggrieved by the draft assessment orders for assessment years 2011-2012 to 2013-2014, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP passed orders giving directions to the TPO / AO. The DRP deleted the TP addition made towards `Commercial Services

Bostik India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2031/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sri.C.J.Brito, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Bostik India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 837/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sri.C.J.Brito, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Black Knight India Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on ground no

ITA 230/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 230/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Black Knight India Solutions Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant 6-3-1192-2-1, Htc Commissioner Of Towers, Kundanbagh, Income Tax, Begumpet, Circle – 1(1)(2), Hyderabad, Vs. Bangalore. Telangana – 500 016. Pan: Aaccl2956K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 26-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2021 Passed By The Ld.Ao In National E-Assessment For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Final Assessment Order Dated 30 March 2021 (And Received By The Appellant On 30 March 2021) Passed By The Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Income-Tax Officer, National E-Assessment

For Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram

Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 92C

provisions of Section 92CA of the IT Act, 1961. The transfer pricing adjustment was proposed at Rs.5,40,95,771/-. 2.4. Against the draft assessment order, assessee preferred objections before the DRP. The DRP passed order giving certain directions in respect of the issues raised by assessee against which

M/S. Dmg Mori India Private Limited (Formerly Dmg Mori Seiki India Machines and Services Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 165/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 165/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Dmg Mori India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Dmg Mori Seiki India Machines & The Deputy Services Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner Of No. 3/1, 3Rd Main Road, Income Tax, Kiadb, Peenya, 1St Stage, Circle – 11(1), Ward No. 1, Hmt, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 058. Pan: Aabcd0003E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vikram, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 29/11/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Cit(Appeals) Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(I) Of The Act (Rs.2,76,24,000/-) 2.1. Disallowance U/S.40(A)(I) Unwarranted: The Cit(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Payments Made To M/S R.S Mail Limited , United Kingdom

For Appellant: Shri Vikram, Advocate

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 40

total adjustment proposed by the Ld.TPO are as under: 2.8 The Ld.AO, on receipt of the order under section 92 CA passed the draft assessment order on 11/03/2013. As the assessee did not file any objections before the DRP within the stipulated period, final assessment order was passed on 30/04/2013

Alcon Laboratories India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 726/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 726/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Alcon Laboratories (India) The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of 11Th Floor, Rmz Azure, Income Tax, Bellary Road, Hebbal, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 092. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aacca3430F Appellant Respondent : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23/01/2017 Passed By The Ld.Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2012-13 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Alcon Laboratories (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”] In Pursuance To The Directions Issued By Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr

Section 143(3)Section 144C

expenditure-₹ 62,06,30,238 On receipt of the order under section 92CA of the act, the Ld.AO pass the draft assessment order incorporating the proposed additions in the hands of assessee. Against the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the DRP 4. The DRP excluded 6 comparable

M/S Nava Karnataka Steels Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1947/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri T Srinivasa Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D George, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 92BSection 92CSection 92D

details are provided below: IT(TP)A No.1947 /Bang/2017 Page 3 of 15 3. The AO passed the draft assessment order dated 30.12.2016. The assessee raised objections before the DRP. The DRP after considering the submissions of the assessee gave partial relief to the assessee whereby the DRP directed

Novell Software Development (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 319/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

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

claim in this regard. 10. Directions issued by the DRP: That the directions issued by the DRP, to the extent they confirm the draft assessment order of the AO, are erroneous and liable to be set aside. 11. Initiation of penalty proceedings That the AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings ... adjustment of ₹6,63,78,224/- for SDR segment. 3. On receipt of the Transfer pricing order under 92CA, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order on 20/02/2015 incorporating the transfer pricing adjustment aggregating ₹.21,43,81,331/-. The Page 14 of 53 IT(TP)A Nos. 280 & 319/Bang/2016 Ld.AO