← 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 Tejats Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1674/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 19 of 34 was allowed in draft assessment order. The learned AO arbitrarily withdrew the depreciation in the final assessment order. 10.2. The learned AO ought to have provided depreciation to the assessee ... assessee as claimed in the return of income amounting to Rs. 218,470. The learned AO granted the foreign tax credit in the draft assessment order and has arbitrarily not allowed the same in the final assessment order. 12. Short credit of tax deducted at source 12.1. The learned

Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 694/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 19 of 34 was allowed in draft assessment order. The learned AO arbitrarily withdrew the depreciation in the final assessment order. 10.2. The learned AO ought to have provided depreciation to the assessee ... assessee as claimed in the return of income amounting to Rs. 218,470. The learned AO granted the foreign tax credit in the draft assessment order and has arbitrarily not allowed the same in the final assessment order. 12. Short credit of tax deducted at source 12.1. The learned

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 621/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 19 of 34 was allowed in draft assessment order. The learned AO arbitrarily withdrew the depreciation in the final assessment order. 10.2. The learned AO ought to have provided depreciation to the assessee ... assessee as claimed in the return of income amounting to Rs. 218,470. The learned AO granted the foreign tax credit in the draft assessment order and has arbitrarily not allowed the same in the final assessment order. 12. Short credit of tax deducted at source 12.1. The learned

Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 468/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 19 of 34 was allowed in draft assessment order. The learned AO arbitrarily withdrew the depreciation in the final assessment order. 10.2. The learned AO ought to have provided depreciation to the assessee ... assessee as claimed in the return of income amounting to Rs. 218,470. The learned AO granted the foreign tax credit in the draft assessment order and has arbitrarily not allowed the same in the final assessment order. 12. Short credit of tax deducted at source 12.1. The learned

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 296/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 19 of 34 was allowed in draft assessment order. The learned AO arbitrarily withdrew the depreciation in the final assessment order. 10.2. The learned AO ought to have provided depreciation to the assessee ... assessee as claimed in the return of income amounting to Rs. 218,470. The learned AO granted the foreign tax credit in the draft assessment order and has arbitrarily not allowed the same in the final assessment order. 12. Short credit of tax deducted at source 12.1. The learned

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1119/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 19 of 34 was allowed in draft assessment order. The learned AO arbitrarily withdrew the depreciation in the final assessment order. 10.2. The learned AO ought to have provided depreciation to the assessee ... assessee as claimed in the return of income amounting to Rs. 218,470. The learned AO granted the foreign tax credit in the draft assessment order and has arbitrarily not allowed the same in the final assessment order. 12. Short credit of tax deducted at source 12.1. The learned

Neogenetics Foods Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 361/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.361/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Neogenetics Foods Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Level 14 & 15, Concorde Towers, Ub City, 1 Circle - 3(1)(1), Vittal Malya Road, Ub City, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aadcn 7689 L Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

No.361/Bang/2021 Page 12 of 15 creditors as both purchase and sale of goods have been accepted by the same authorities. 19. In the draft assessment order the AO has made an addition of Rs. 3,97,93,505/- u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that the assessee

Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited (Formerly Known As M/S Core Objects India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 682/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92C

passed an order dated 08.12.2014 u/s.92CA of the Act, determining TP adjustment of Rs. 10,44,44,180/-. The Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order dated 30.03.2015, incorporating the above adjustment and proposing to disallow (i) provision for rent claimed by the IT(TP)A Nos.682, 632/Bang/2016 Page

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 5022/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

another letter dated 17th February, 2014 of the Respondent- Assessee to the Appellant-Revenue; (vzz) however notwithstanding the aforesaid, the AO passed the draft assessment order dated 31st March, 2014, in the name of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd.; (viii) the Respondent-Assessee, in response to the department

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 5021/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

another letter dated 17th February, 2014 of the Respondent- Assessee to the Appellant-Revenue; (vzz) however notwithstanding the aforesaid, the AO passed the draft assessment order dated 31st March, 2014, in the name of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd.; (viii) the Respondent-Assessee, in response to the department

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 5020/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

another letter dated 17th February, 2014 of the Respondent- Assessee to the Appellant-Revenue; (vzz) however notwithstanding the aforesaid, the AO passed the draft assessment order dated 31st March, 2014, in the name of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd.; (viii) the Respondent-Assessee, in response to the department

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 4561/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

another letter dated 17th February, 2014 of the Respondent- Assessee to the Appellant-Revenue; (vzz) however notwithstanding the aforesaid, the AO passed the draft assessment order dated 31st March, 2014, in the name of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd.; (viii) the Respondent-Assessee, in response to the department

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 4560/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

another letter dated 17th February, 2014 of the Respondent- Assessee to the Appellant-Revenue; (vzz) however notwithstanding the aforesaid, the AO passed the draft assessment order dated 31st March, 2014, in the name of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd.; (viii) the Respondent-Assessee, in response to the department

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 4559/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

another letter dated 17th February, 2014 of the Respondent- Assessee to the Appellant-Revenue; (vzz) however notwithstanding the aforesaid, the AO passed the draft assessment order dated 31st March, 2014, in the name of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd.; (viii) the Respondent-Assessee, in response to the department

Aurigo Software Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 178/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.178/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Aurigo Software Technologies Private Limited, Vs. Ito, Ajmera Aditya Summit, No.3D1, Ground Floor, Ward-1(1)(1), 7Th C Main Road, 3Rd Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 034. Pan : Aacca 5309 D Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, 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. The Assessee filed objections before the Disputes Resolution Panel 6. (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

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

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2511/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)

processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") and was subsequently selected for scrutiny assessment. 3. In the draft assessment order the Ld.AO disallowed depreciation claimed by relying on as per proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. In view of the Ld.AO

Dsv Solution P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 922/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledvs Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs. Additional/Joint/ A-203, The Qube, Cts Assistant No. 1489, Mv Road, Commissioner Of Marol, Andheri East, Income Tax, National Mumbai – 400059. E- Assessment Centre, Delhi. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu5306L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Karishmaprataphekar.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Ms.KarishmaPrataphekar.ARFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C(1)

initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on adjustments made in the draft assessment order. The Appellant prays that the disallowance made by the learned AO / TPO and upheld by the learned DRP be deleted and consequential relief be granted ... Rs.37,60,35,876/-and passed the order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act dated 30.10.2019. 4. Subsequently, The A.O. has passed the Draft assessment order with transfer pricing adjustment u/s 144C(1) r.w.s 143(3) of the Act dated 28.11.2019 and assessed the total income

M/S Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 608/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

Page 13 of 33 IT(TP)A Nos. 445 & 608/Bang/2016 3.5. The Ld.AO while passing the draft assessment order made further disallowance u/s. 80JJA of the Act as well as disallowed expenses while computing 10A deduction in respect of telecommunication charges. The Ld.AO also computed the 14A disallowance by computing

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Robert Bosch Engineering & Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 445/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

Page 13 of 33 IT(TP)A Nos. 445 & 608/Bang/2016 3.5. The Ld.AO while passing the draft assessment order made further disallowance u/s. 80JJA of the Act as well as disallowed expenses while computing 10A deduction in respect of telecommunication charges. The Ld.AO also computed the 14A disallowance by computing

M/S. Acusis Software India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bengaluru

ITA 2702/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2702/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Acusis Software India The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 17/2, Dollars Chamber, Income Tax, Lalbagh Road, Circle – 1(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 027. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aadca2415P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order 12.10.2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Revised & Modified Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Acusis Software India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As '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'] Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act. 1961 ('The Act') On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)

Adjustment -1.44% Adjusted arithmetic mean 22.08% The Ld.TPO undertook negative working capital adjustment and no risk adjustment was granted to assessee. In the draft assessment order, the adjustment proposed by the Ld.TPO was incorporated by the Ld.AO. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee raised objections before