“draft assessment order”

Mahindra Trucks and Buses Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd, The Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Mahindra Trucks Income Tax, 2(2)(2), Ayakar & Buses Ltd.) Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo 400 020 Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7863L

income on 26th November, 2013 at a loss of Rs. 335,61,83,066/-, which was picked up for scrutiny and consequently draft assessment order was passed by the learned Assessing Officer, wherein the adjustment proposed by the learned Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing-3(2), Mumbai

Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-10(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd. Income Tax, 10(1)(1), Chakala, Andheri (E), R.No.209, Vs. Mumbai-400 009 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach0964P

length price of the specified domestic transactions towards civil work and purchase of equipment. 010. Based on that, learned Assessing Officer while passing draft assessment order included the above adjustment. It further found that the assessee has earned rental income of Rs. 2.28 crore, however claimed deduction of full property ... Accordingly, the total income was computed at a loss of Rs. 155,43,60,230/-while passing draft assessment order. 011. Assessee filed objection before the learned dispute resolution panel – 1 (WZ), Mumbai who passed direction on 16 August 2017 confirming action of the learned Transfer Pricing Officer

Godrej Consumer Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegodrej Consumer Vs. Dcit, Cc-14(1)(1) Products Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry 4Th Floor, Mk Road, Llp, Esplanade House, Mumbai-400020. 2Nd Floor, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg3365J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Farrokh.V. Irani.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat. Cit Dr & Mr.Satya Pinisetty.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144(C)(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed In Pursuance To Directions Of The Drp.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(1) of the Act dated 25.02.2016. 5. Against the draft assessment order the assessee has filed objections in Form-35A before the DRP. Whereas the DRP has dealt on the objections and issued specific directions and passed the order u/s 144C

Accc 30, Mumbai vs. United Shippers Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of United Shippers Ltd. United India Bldg, 2N D Floor, Sir Income-Tax, Circle-30 R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, P.M. Road , Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu0764C The Asst. Commissioner Of United Shippers Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-30 United India Bldg, 2N D Floor, Sir R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, P.M. Road , Vs. Ayakar Bhavan, Fort, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

assessment order, and there is no material proof or corroborative evidence of its existence, he added the above sum. 014. Accordingly the draft assessment order was passed. Assessee did not file any objection. Therefore, final order u/s 143 (3) of the act was passed on 14/2/2011 determining the total income

Dy CIT (It)-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Pramerica Aspf II Cyprus, Haryana

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) committed grave error in law by quashing the assessment order ignoring the fact that the draft assessment order was in substance and effect in conformity with or purpose of the Act being prejudicial to the according to the intent and assessee and such ... appeal, which we will take up together, the assessee appellant has raised the following grievance: The learned AO has erred in passing a draft assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) of the Act, even when no variation has been proposed therein to the income

The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-1, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

nowhere mentioned that the final assessment order is passed after the direction of DRP. Admittedly, this is not a case, where draft assessment order is being revised. This is a case where final assessment order passed pursuant to the direction of DRP u/s. 144(3) is being revised by Ld.CIT ... mandate of section 144C(13). Furthermore, it is also settled law that in assessment u/s. 144C, AO has to invariably pass a draft assessment order and give the same to the assessee for filing objection before DRP. Hence, the direction by the Ld.CIT to the AO to pass an order

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Large Tax Payer Unit-1, Mumbai

797/Mum/2018

above, the A.O. proposed disallowance of ₹ 32,42,666/- on account of subscription paid by the assessee to Tata Sons Ltd. in the draft assessment order against which objection was filed by the assessee before the DRP. The DRP found the objection of the assessee to be unsustainable keeping ... group, a similar subscription paid by the assessee company to Tata Sons Ltd. was proposed to be disallowed by the A.O. in the draft assessment order for A.Y. 2008-09 and when the assessee objected to the said disallowance before the DRP by relying on the decision of the Tribunal

Strides Pharma Science Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15 (3)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

application money remitted by the assessee to its A.Es for which shares were allotted after more than six months. The Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order dated 20.12.2018, under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(1) of the Act, inter–alia, on the basis of adjustment proposed ... this petition was filed on April 24, 2013, challenging the impugned orders dated January 30, 2013, of the Transfer Pricing Officer and the draft assessment order dated March 28, 2014, of the Assessing Officer, on the issue of jurisdiction. This issue has been decided in Vodafone IV and would

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu-1, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

term ―tax‖ as defined under section 2(43) of the Act would only include taxes chargeable under the Act. The Assessing Officer, vide draft assessment order dated 16.02.2015, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(1) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee ... assessee on the payments made to the non–residents as no income was chargeable to tax in India. The Assessing Officer, vide draft assessment order dated 16.02.2015, held that the payment made for import of software is in the nature of royalty within the meaning of section

Iss Facility Services India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 10(1)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.411/मुं/2018 ("न. व. 2013-14) Iss Facility Services India Private Limited The Qube, B 401/404 & A 402 Behind Taj Stats, Village Marol Sahar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400 059 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aabc13815M बनाम/Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax- 10(1)(2) Room No. 14, 20Th Floor, Air India Building, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021

Length Price of the transactions as ‘Nil’, resulting in adjustment of Rs. 6,24,20,480/-. The Assessing Officer (‘AO’) passed the draft assessment order dated 29.12.2016, inter-alia, on the basis of adjustment proposed by the TPO. 3.4 Before the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’), the assessee filed objections, inter

The ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Shelter Housing Development, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Acit-24(1) Mumbai Shelter Housing Development 401-402, Viraj Towers, Room No.601, Western Express Highway Near Piramal Chambers, Vs. Weh Metro Station, Jeejeebhoy Lane, Andheri (East) Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 093 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagfm6042A

dealt with the rebuttal given by the assessee to each and every allegation raised by the AO in the Draft Assessment order. AO has conveniently overlooked the fund flow v. details submitted during the Video conference wherein it was explained that the net capital introduced by M/s. J P (Infra ... proceedings, further Notice dated 05.08.2022 was issued and served upon the appellant. Vide this Notice, appellant was requested to submit the copy of Draft Assessment Order, copy of partnership deed of the firm, show cause notice issued by the AO and all the submissions filed before AO during the assessment

DCIT(It)-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Clsa Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee for both the A

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant (Accoutant Member)

time and accordingly same are admitted for adjudication. 7. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the ld. Assessing Officer in draft assessment orders passed for A.Y. 2012-13 held the ITA Nos.592 & 593/Mum/2019, 6 C.Os.93 &94/Mum/2021 A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 DCIT (IT)-2(1)(1) Vs. CLSA ... India for A.Y. 2012-13. The assessee did not file any objection before the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (for short ‘DRP’) against the draft assessment order and accepted the said reimbursement as FTS. The facts in respect of A.Y. 2013-14 are also similar. In view of no appeal filed