← All Phrases

“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
71
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
49
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
34
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
34
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
34
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. Vee Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2042/BANG/2019[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

Altran Technologies India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2904/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2904/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Altran Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., C/O Ernst & Young Llp, The Deputy Ground & 1St Floor, Commissioner Of Income ‘A’ Wing, Divyasree Chambers, Tax, Vs. #11, O’ Shaughnessy Road, Circle – 1 (1)(1), Langford Gardens, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaaca7125R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 31/10/2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Altran Technologies India Private Limited (The 'Appellant') Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Id. Ao') Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The 'Act') Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel (`Drp') On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C

Ld.TPO proposed the adjustment at Rs.6,01,83,842/- being the shortfall. On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order. In the daft assessment order, he further Page 7 of 22 IT(TP)A No. 2904/Bang/2017 made disallowance of Rs.66,66,090/- being ... depreciation on software. Against the draft assessment order, assessee preferred objections before the DRP. The DRP upheld the adjustment proposed by the Ld.TPO in toto. On receipt of the DRP direction, the Ld.AO passed the final assessment order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal

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

In the result appeals filed by assessee for assessment years

ITA 2171/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 210/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Amicorp Management India Pvt. Ltd., Unit No. 701 & 702, The Income Tax Officer, 7Th Floor, Campus 6B, Ward – 1 (1)(3), Rmz Ecoworld, Sarjapur, Bangalore. Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aafca1468C Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 2171/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Amicorp Management India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Unit No. 701 & 702, Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Campus 6B, Income Tax, Rmz Ecoworld, Sarjapur, Circle – 1 (1)(2), Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aafca1468C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sherry Goyal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022

For Appellant: Ms. Sherry Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

based on certain comparables selected during the transfer pricing proceedings. 2.6 On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order incorporating the adjustment so proposed. Against the draft assessment order, assessee filed its objections before the DRP. 2.7 Before the DRP, it was submitted that

Amicrop Management India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee for assessment years

ITA 210/BANG/2017[2012 -2013]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 210/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Amicorp Management India Pvt. Ltd., Unit No. 701 & 702, The Income Tax Officer, 7Th Floor, Campus 6B, Ward – 1 (1)(3), Rmz Ecoworld, Sarjapur, Bangalore. Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aafca1468C Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 2171/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Amicorp Management India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Unit No. 701 & 702, Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Campus 6B, Income Tax, Rmz Ecoworld, Sarjapur, Circle – 1 (1)(2), Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aafca1468C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sherry Goyal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022

For Appellant: Ms. Sherry Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

based on certain comparables selected during the transfer pricing proceedings. 2.6 On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order incorporating the adjustment so proposed. Against the draft assessment order, assessee filed its objections before the DRP. 2.7 Before the DRP, it was submitted that

DCIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Nomura Structured Finance Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 1711/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh IraniFor Respondent: Smt. Vatsalya Jha
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

total adjustment of Rs. 7,78,15,295 to the international transactions entered into by the assessee. 7. The Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order dated 18.02.2014, inter-alia, on the basis of adjustment proposed by the TPO. M/s. Nomura Structured Finance Services Private Limited ITA No. 1711/Mum./2015

Atos Information Technology Hk Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) - 1(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7205/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2011-12
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 9Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

attribution of profits is being made of now as the same is not required.” Above order was also proposed in the draft assessment order and the appeal before the DRP. Learned DRP rejected the assessee’s contention and confirmed the Assessing Officer’s order.” 5. Against the above order, Assessee

Diamond Dye-Chem Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 596/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalediamond Dye-Chem Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 6(2)(2) (Now Merged With Basf 5Th Floor, Aayakar India Ltd) Bhavan, Plot No. 37, Chandivali Mumbai – 400 001. Farm Road, Chandivali, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd3478N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitesh Joshi.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr & Sri.Satya Pinisetty.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Mr.Nitesh Joshi.ARFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR &
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act dated 31.12.2013 with upward adjustment to the ALP of Rs. 2,18,06,496/-.The Draft assessment order U/sec Diamomnd Dye Chem Ltd, Mumbai 143(3) r.w.s144C(1) of the Act dated 27-01-2014 was passed with transfer pricing adjustments, disallowance ... depreciation on Racks, Adjustment of Closing stock U/sec145A of the Act and disallowance u/sec14A of the Act. 3. Against the draft assessment order the assessee has filed Objections in Form. No.35A before the DRP. Whereas the DRP has considered the submissions of the assessee and findings

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Pmc Sierra India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objection of assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1139/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1139/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Micro Semi Storage Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy (Formerly Known As Commissioner Of Pmc-Sierra India Pvt. Income Tax, Ltd.) Circle – 4(1)(1), 19, Church Street, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aadcp6802F Appellant Respondent & C.O. No. 84/Bang/2017 (In It(Tp)A No. 1139/Bang/2016) (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit & Revenue By Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2013 By The Ld.Dcit

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Cost Short fall being adjustment u/s. 92CA Rs.4,76,06,151/- On receipt of the TPO order, the Ld.AO while passing the draft assessment order observed as under: The Ld.AO noted that assessee also claimed deduction under Section 10A at Rs.12,74,45,327/-. The Ld.AO recomputed the deduction

Red Hat India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 1379/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, A.R. &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144B

give effect to DRP directions, for computation of profitability margins of various comparables; 1.6 confirming the incorrect value of adjustment disregarding the draft Assessment order and rectification application filed before the Ld. TPO/AO; and 1.7 not granting proportionate adjustment for the value of international transactions, thereby extending the quantum ... India Private Limited computation of profitability margins of various comparables; 2.6 confirming the incorrect value of adjustment disregarding the draft Assessment order and rectification application filed before the Ld. TPO/AO; and 2.7 not granting proportionate adjustment for the value of international transactions, thereby extending the quantum of transfer pricing adjustment

Timblo Shipyards P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assesseing Officer/ National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 1168/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessing Officer, National E- Timblo Shipyards Private Assessment Centre, Delhi Limited Income Tax Department, 64 Bajaj Bhavan Nariman National E-Assessment Vs. Point, Mumbai-400 021 Centre, New Delhi, Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadct4852B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 156

submitting that assessee would be availing benefit of ‘Vivad se Vishwas Scheme’. Therefore, Dispute Resolution Panel dismissed the objection on 18.02.2021. Thus, the draft assessment order became final. 04. As per return of income, the assessee has shown business losses of ₹4,86,52,631/-, short term capital gain

M/S Fmc India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3313/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessmentyear: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 40

Accordingly, the AO took the view that the assessee cannot claim above said capital expenditure u/s 35(1)(iv). Accordingly, he passed the draft assessment order disallowing the claim. 5.2 The Ld DRP confirmed the disallowance with the following observations:- “2.10.1 Having considered the submissions, we find that ... deduct tax at source from the said payment, he disallowed the same u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act in the draft assessment order. The Ld DRP also confirmed the same and accordingly, this addition was made by the AO in the final assessment order also. 6.1 Before

M/S. Praxair India Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2209/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 40Section 40aSection 92C

filed its objections before the DRP. The DRP vide its order dated 11/08/2016 granted marginal relief to the assessee and largely upheld the draft assessment order. Page 4 of 25 7. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, final asst. order was passed by the AO dated 30.09.2016. 8. Aggrieved

Sabmiller India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 11(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7157/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

28/11/2012 declaring loss of Rs.135,45,95,943/-, which was later revised on 26/03/2014 declaring loss of Rs.133,07,69,973/-. The draft assessment order was passed by the ld. AO on 29/03/2016 wherein certain additions / disallowances including M/s. Anheuser Busch InBev India Limited transfer pricing adjustment were made. Pursuant

M/S Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 655/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

comparability of the company Informed Technologies Ltd., is concerned, it is undisputed that the Assessee in Annexure 1.18 of its objections to the draft assessment order of the AO, objected to the exclusion of this company from the list of comparable companies, but this objection was not considered

Ul India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

comparability of the company Informed Technologies Ltd., is concerned, it is undisputed that the Assessee in Annexure 1.18 of its objections to the draft assessment order of the AO, objected to the exclusion of this company from the list of comparable companies, but this objection was not considered

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S U.L. India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 378/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

comparability of the company Informed Technologies Ltd., is concerned, it is undisputed that the Assessee in Annexure 1.18 of its objections to the draft assessment order of the AO, objected to the exclusion of this company from the list of comparable companies, but this objection was not considered

Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as directed above

ITA 4675/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Asst. Commissioner Income Asian Paints Ltd. Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2, 6A Shanti Nagar, Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), World Trade Centre, Cuffee Mumbai-400 055 Vs. Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaaca3622K Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of 6A Shanti Nagar, Income Tax-Ltu Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055 World Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Sr Dr Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02 .2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am: 01. These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Asian Paints Ltd [Appellant/Assessee] & The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax – Large Taxpayers Unit

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr DRFor Respondent: Shri
Section 14ASection 35

Tribunal while deciding identical issue in Assessment Year 2006-07 in ITA No. 3289/Mum/2015 dated 11- 01-2017. Further, he submitted, in the draft assessment order passed for Assessment Year 2012-13 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer himself has accepted assessee

DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Communication Limited, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1561/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7514 /मुं/2011 ("न. व. 2007-08 ) आअसं. 6781/मुं/2012 ("न.व. 2008-09) आअसं. 572/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1106/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) Tata Communications Ltd. (Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Bhavan, M.G Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aaccv-2808-C बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 1(3), Room No.540, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 1657/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1561/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) The Dcit -1(3) Room No.564,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai 400 020 बनाम Vs.

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Harsh M. Kapadia and K.DamaniaFor Respondent: Shri. Vatsalya Saxena& Shri B.K.Bagchi
Section 120(4)(b)Section 143(3)

appeal raised by assessee vide application dated 10/09/2020 reads as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the draft assessment order dated 19.12.2011 and the final assessment order dated 25.10.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C ... Tribunal be pleased to quash the said orders. 2. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax lacked jurisdiction to pass the draft assessment order dated 19.12.2011 and the final assessment order dated 25.10.2012 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C and to exercise the powers of performing the functions of an Assessing

Tata Communications Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1106/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7514 /मुं/2011 ("न. व. 2007-08 ) आअसं. 6781/मुं/2012 ("न.व. 2008-09) आअसं. 572/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1106/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) Tata Communications Ltd. (Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Bhavan, M.G Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aaccv-2808-C बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 1(3), Room No.540, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 1657/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1561/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) The Dcit -1(3) Room No.564,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai 400 020 बनाम Vs.

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Harsh M. Kapadia and K.DamaniaFor Respondent: Shri. Vatsalya Saxena& Shri B.K.Bagchi
Section 120(4)(b)Section 143(3)

appeal raised by assessee vide application dated 10/09/2020 reads as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the draft assessment order dated 19.12.2011 and the final assessment order dated 25.10.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C ... Tribunal be pleased to quash the said orders. 2. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax lacked jurisdiction to pass the draft assessment order dated 19.12.2011 and the final assessment order dated 25.10.2012 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C and to exercise the powers of performing the functions of an Assessing

Tata Communications Limited(Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT Range - 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 572/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7514 /मुं/2011 ("न. व. 2007-08 ) आअसं. 6781/मुं/2012 ("न.व. 2008-09) आअसं. 572/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1106/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) Tata Communications Ltd. (Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Bhavan, M.G Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aaccv-2808-C बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 1(3), Room No.540, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 1657/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1561/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) The Dcit -1(3) Room No.564,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai 400 020 बनाम Vs.

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Harsh M. Kapadia and K.DamaniaFor Respondent: Shri. Vatsalya Saxena& Shri B.K.Bagchi
Section 120(4)(b)Section 143(3)

appeal raised by assessee vide application dated 10/09/2020 reads as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the draft assessment order dated 19.12.2011 and the final assessment order dated 25.10.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C ... Tribunal be pleased to quash the said orders. 2. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax lacked jurisdiction to pass the draft assessment order dated 19.12.2011 and the final assessment order dated 25.10.2012 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C and to exercise the powers of performing the functions of an Assessing