“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

M/S Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3363/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 3363/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Tyco Fire & The Assistant Security India Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of D-601, Rmz Contennial, Income Tax, Kundalahalli Main Road, Circle – 7 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabct0087C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 05-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 26.10.2018 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Appellant"), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Appeal Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao") Dated October 26, 2018 Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Pursuant To The Directions Dated September 20, 2018 Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Drp") U/S 144C (5) Of The Act (`The Impugned Order') Inter-Alia On The Following Grounds: That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CA

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C

Total adjustment 92,66,37,986 Page 11 of 36 IT(TP)A No. 3363/Bang/2018 The Ld.AO passed the Draft assessment order on receipt of the Order under section 92CA by further proposing following additions: Transfer Pricing addition Rs.92,66,37,986/- Disallowed Salary paid to Expat employees in Foreign ... Currency Rs. 6,60,19,470/- Reimbursement of expenses Rs.12,34,39,147/- Against the draft assessment order, the assessee raised objection before the DRP. The DRP allowed the objection raised by assessee to treat certain operating income as operating in nature under the R& D segment. All other objections

Edunxt Global Sdn Bhd, Malaysia vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), International Taxation, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2496/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2496/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Edunxt Global Sdn Bhd, The Deputy Unit A(Ii) Level 5. Commissioner Of Income Menara Shell, Tax, 211 Jalan Tun Circle 1(1), Sambathan, International Taxation, Kuala Lumpur, Vs. Bangalore. My – 50470, Malaysia. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Ca : Shri K.V. Aravind, Advocate & Revenue By Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 23-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By Non Resident Assessee Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 26.09.2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit(It), Circle -1(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon'Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Had In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 9(1)(vi)

towards sale of software licenses and software implementation support fees and annual maintenance fee from Aditya Birla Management Corporation Ltd. In the draft assessment order, Ld.AO concluded that the amount received by the non resident assessee constituted royalty within the meaning Page 4 of 9 IT(IT)A No. 2496/Bang/2017

Hp India Sales Private Limited (Formerly Known As Hewlett - Packard India Sales Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 779/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40aSection 92C

adjustment of Rs.595,97,63,824/-. The AO, besides the TP adjustment, made several additions on the corporate tax front while passing the draft assessment order. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee raised its objections before the DRP who gave relief with regard to the transfer pricing adjustments directing ... subsequent TDS deduction and remittance, and to give relief as appropriate. With regard to deferred revenue, the DRP noted that in the draft assessment order no addition has been proposed (due to negative movement in the deferred revenue / Cost) and hence DRP did not issue any directions. The AO issued

Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

ITA 699/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tata Power Solar The Deputy Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of 78, Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact4660J Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 699/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Kanchun Kaushal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals By Assessee & Revenue Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle -7 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: It(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 (Revenue’S Appeal): “1. The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel Are Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, CA

Section 144C

adjustment to the international transactions entered by the assessee with its AEs. On receipt of order from Ld.TPO, the Ld.AO passed a draft assessment order under section 144C(1) r.w.s 143(3) on 27.03.2015 wherein the transfer pricing adjustment was made as also certain other additions on corporate tax issues ... Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (`DRP'). 3. In response to the objections raised, the DRP issued directions under section 144C(5) of the Act on 30.12.2015 confirming the additions proposed in the draft assessment order. On receipt

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

ITA 548/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, CA

Section 144C

M/S Continental Automotive Components India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 129/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2014-15 M/S. Continental Automotive Vs. Dcit, Components India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Plot No.53B, Bommasandra Industrial Bengaluru. Area, Hosur Road, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru–560 099. Pan : Aakcs 9578 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92

determining the TP adjustment with respect to manufacturing segment and SWD services segment totaling to Rs.155,70,82,500/-.Initially, a draft assessment order dated 08.12.2017 came to be passed by the AO in which, inter alia, the aforesaid TP adjustment was incorporated, apart from the additions made ... directed allowance of the actual expenditure and as regards expenditure incurred towards annual license fees, the disallowance made by the AO in the draft assessment order was upheld. 13. Aggrieved by the final assessment order dated 30.11.2018, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. In this appeal

Tata Autocomp System Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 1677/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Aarthi SatheFor Respondent: Achal Sharma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

limitation of 4 years from the end of the financial year in which the final assessment order was passed, instead of the draft assessment order. Your Appellant prays that such rectification order be treated as null and void. 2. Ground 2: Erroneously passing a rectification order under section

M/S. Capco Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2436/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Huilgol, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, 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

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Apotex Pharmachem India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1227/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha

Section 10B

into account the total turnover and total export turnover of the entire business. Post the completion of assessment proceedings, the AO passed a draft assessment order ('draft order') dated March 15, 2013, as per the terms of section 144C read with section 143(3) of the Act. In the said ... things; Page 11 of 16 ii.The approval was not granted by Development Commissioner w.r.t. R&D activities; 23. The AO in the draft assessment order had denied the benefit of 10B and the reason recorded by the AO were mentioned in para 5.7 to 5.9 of the order, which

M/S Verifone India Technology Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 3089/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1St Floor, Cyber The Income Tax Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Officer, Doddathogur Village, Ward – 7 (1) (3), Begur Hobli, Bangalore. Bangalore South Taluk, Vs. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1683K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1St Floor, Cyber The Deputy Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Commissioner Of Doddathogur Village, Income Tax, Begur Hobli, Circle – 7 (1)(2), Bangalore South Taluk, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1683K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-03-2022

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate

Section 92C

proposed an adjustment at Rs.2,73,72,480/-. On receipt of the order under section 92CA of the Act, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order confirming the addition as per the order under section 92 CA of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred ... proposed an adjustment at Rs.2,37,82,190/-. On receipt of the order under section 92CA of the Act, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order confirming the addition as per the order under section 92 CA of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred

M/S Verifone India Technology Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 3088/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate

Section 92C

Ingersoll Rand Technologies and Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 89/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri , CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

made an adjustment of Rs.1,75,39,613/- by making an adjustment in respect of cost contribution charges. The draft assessment order was passed by the AO wherein the AO incorporated eleven disallowances pertaining to the various expenses claimed by the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed its objections before

Accenture Solution Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7457/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7457/मुं/2018 ("न. व. 2014-15 ) Accenture Solutions Private Limited(‘Asol) [As A Successor To Accenture Services Private Limited (“Aspl”) Which Has Merged Into Asol With An Effective Date Of 1 December 2016] Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Phirojshah Nagar, Vikhroli West, Off Lbs Marg, Mumbai 400 079. Pan: Aaach-3235-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate With Shri Hiten Chande ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat Cit Dr & Shri Satya Pinisetty सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate with Shri Hiten ChandeFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat CIT DR &

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

92CA(3) of the Act dated 21/11/2017 in the name of non-existing entity i.e. M/s. Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, the draft assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer in the name of M/s. Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd. i.e. a non-existing entity. The ld. Counsel ... assessee pointed that a perusal of the cause title of draft assessment order would show that the Assessing Officer was well aware of the fact that M/s. Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd. has been amalgamated with M/s. Accenture Solutions Pvt. Ltd. , yet the draft assessment order was passed in the name

Dhl Logistics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7286/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledhl Logistics Pvt Ltd Vs. Acit – 9(3)(1) 201A, Silver Utopia, Room No. 215, Cardinal Gracias Road 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Chakala, Andheri (E) Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400099 Mumbai – 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm6824A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Madhur Agarwal.Ar Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat.Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agarwal.ARFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat.CIT.DR

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

passed the order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on 31.10.2017. The A.O. after receiving the TPO order has passed the draft assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(1) of the Act dated 13.12.2017 with the transfer pricing adjustment, disallowance of depreciation on goodwill, disallowance of employees contribution ... interest on delayed payments of TDS. The assessee has filed the objections in Form No.35A against the draft assessment order with the DRP. Whereas the DRP after considering the findings of the TPO and objections of the assessee and the earlier year orders on similar disputs has issued directions

M/S Lenovo India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2833/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA

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

proposed adjustment towards AMP spent at Rs.82,05,25,509/-. 2.6 On receipt of order passed by the Ld.TPO, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order by making following addition over and above the proposed T.P addition:- 3. The assessee filed objections before the DRP. The DRP agreed with ... contentions of the Ld.TPO on both the adjustments proposed. Against the draft assessment order, assessee filed its objections before the DRP. 4. On receipt of the DRP directions, the Ld.AO passed the final assessment order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that Ground

Goodrich Aerospace Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 566/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 566/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Goodrich Aerospace Services Pvt. Ltd., 14/1 & 15/1, The Deputy Maruthi Industrial Commissioner Of Estate, Income Tax, Phase 2, Hoody Village, Circle – 3 (1)(1), Whitefield Road, Vs. Bangalore. Kr Puram, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan: Aaacb8857H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Hereinafter Taken By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another. I. Transfer Pricing 1. The Learned Assessing Officer ("Ao"), Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Learned Tpo") & The Honourable Dispute

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate

Section 40Section 92BSection 92C

Ld.TPO proposed the adjustment in respect of Interest on Outstanding Receivables – INR 1,72,72,093/-. The Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order incorporating the adjustment proposed by the Ld.TPO on interest on receivables. The Ld.AO also disallowed Rs. 17,02,430/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) for the non-deduction ... Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the DRP. The DRP directed the Ld.AO to adopt SBI short term deposit interest rate and to recompute the adjustment made to the total income thereby increasing the adjustment by INR 3,48,38,463/-. It is submitted that

Ids Software Solutions India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 537/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.537/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Ids Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Vs. Shabari Complex, Ground Floor, Fo Cabin, No.8, Circle – 3(1)(1), Field Marshal Cariappa Road, Ashok Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 025. Pan : Aabci 243O G Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

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

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

determined at INR 3,34,44,013/- 8. The assessee filed objections to the proposal of the TPO which was incorporated in the draft Assessment Order by the AO before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP in its order dated 29 November 2013 rejected all the contentions ... adjustment u/s 92CA 2,74,02,960 5% of price received (shortfall exceeding 5%) 1,05,14,777 11. The AO passed the draft assessment order dated 27th December 2019 considering the TP adjustments made by the TPO, against which the assessee preferred objections before the DRP. The directions provided

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result we hold that the learned principal

ITA 737/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

For Appellant: Ms Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263(2)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

revised its return on 29 March 2013 at ₹5450,09,08,140/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny. Draft assessment order was passed. As assessee did not want to approach Dispute Resolution Panel, final assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C

Ups Asia Group Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1220/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 9(1)(i)

India under section 9(1)(i) of the Act and profit be attributable thereto for the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer, vide draft assessment order dated 27.12.2019, passed under section 144C of the Act held that the assessee had a Business Connection in India under section ... India. 5. The assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as ―the DRP‖) against the addition proposed in the draft assessment order. The DRP, vide its directions dated 17.03.2021, following its directions issued in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2015–16, rejected

M/S. Vee Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-7, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Bengaluru – 7, Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.2042/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Ward – 7[1][2], Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

condoning delay, but in the present facts and circumstances, the subsequent Counsel Mr. Suresh Muthukrishna, CA, was approached by the assessee after the draft assessment order dated 31.08.2018 was passed. In fact, he filed the objections against the draft assessment order before the DRP and the DRP gave its directions