“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

Serco India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1460/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1460/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Serco India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 6Th Floor, Tower-B, Building No. 8, Circle-2, Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs6704P Assessee By : Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the arm’s length price and the Ld. TPO proposed upward adjustment in transfer pricing. Against the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Ld. DRP. Having regard to the directions of Ld. DRP, the assessment u/s 143(3)/144C was completed ... reference made by the AO suffers from jurisdictional error as the AO did not record any reasons in the draft assessment order based on which he reached the conclusion that it was “expedient and necessary” to refer the matter to the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) for computation

M/S. Buro Happold Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation) -1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 951/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Buro Happold Ltd Vs. Dcit (It) – 1(3)(2) C/O. Urmi Axis, 6Th 1810, 18Th Floor, Air Floor, Famous Studio India Bldg, Lane, Dr. Emoses Road, Narimanpoint,Mumbai- Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400 021. 400011. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb9239Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Anuj Kisnadwala. Ar Respondent By : Mr.Milind Chavan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/Sec144C(5) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr.Anuj Kisnadwala. ARFor Respondent: Mr.Milind Chavan, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 234B

from time to time and furnished the details M/s Buro Happold Ltd, Mumbai. and the case was discussed. The A.O has passed the Draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) of the Act on 30.12.2019. The assessee has filed objections in form no 35A in respect of variations made ... mentioned at Rs.53,23,753/- instead of M/s Buro Happold Ltd, Mumbai. Rs.4,61,574/- given in the original return. The draft assessment, order was framed in the hands of the assessee u/s.143(3) of the Act r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act dated 29/12/2017 determining the total income

Nomura Services India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2303/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalenomura Services India Vs. Dcit – Circle 10(3) Pvt Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 10Th Floor, Nomura, Mk Road, Off High Street, Mumbai – 400020. Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400076. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcl0053C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Faruk Irani & Mr Sumin Mehta.Ar Respondent By : Mrs.Vatsala Jha. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act In Pursuance To Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/Sec144C(5) Of The Act Dated 07.09.2012. Nomura Services India P Ltd., Mumbai. 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal As Under:

For Appellant: Mr.Faruk Irani &For Respondent: Mrs.Vatsala Jha. DR

Section 143(3)

92CA(3) of the Act dated 04.10.2011. 11. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) after receiving the TPO order dt 4.10.2011 has passed the Draft assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(1) of the Act dated 19.12.2011.Wheras, the assessee has filed the objections in Form no 35A against the draft assessment

Gbt India Private Limited, Delhi vs. National E-Assesment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Stay application is accordingly held to be infructuous

ITA 462/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

preferred against the order of the Tribunal (Supra). The Ld. DRP further directed the Assessing Authority to retain the addition proposed in the draft assessment order if "this order of ITA for AY 2015-15 has been challenged before the Hon'ble High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court ... Supra). It is noted that on each of the points, the final assessment order retains the addition proposed in the draft assessment order by noting the averments of the Assessing Officer in some email dated 27.11.2020 (referred in para no. 4 of the final assessment order) informing that the process

M/S. Randox Laboratories India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2576/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2576/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Randox Laboratories India Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Plot No.191-195 & 246-250, Circle 5(1)(1), Bommasandra-Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru. Kiadb Industrial Area, Bengaluru – 560 105. Pan: Aadcr 0074 K Assessee Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishna Upadhyaya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, CIT(DR-OSD), ITAT, Bangalore

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92ASection 92CSection 92F

making an addition of Rs. 3,01,91,170 as TP adjustment. 9. The Assessee in its objection to the draft assessment order in which the addition proposed by the TPO was added to the total income, before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DR) contended that the Assessee is merely

Textron India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 678/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.678/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sumeeth Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R (OSD)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40

adjustment of Rs.70,71,129/-Other two international transactions were accepted to be at arm’s length by TPO. 6. The AO issued draft assessment order proposing addition of transfer pricing adjustments in both EDS and MSS services. Besides the above, the AO also proposed addition ... Bangalore Page 4 of 12 7. The assessee filed objections before Ld DRP objecting to the proposals made by the AO in the draft assessment order. The Transfer pricing adjustments were confirmed by Ld DRP except with regard to the objection relating to error in margin computation and Risk adjustment

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

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

ITA 594/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.678/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sumeeth Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R (OSD)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40

M/S Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It) Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd., The Deputy C/O Mtr Foods Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Income Tax (It), 100 Feet Inner Ring Road, Asmnt, Circle – 2(1), Ejipura, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Aabco4087B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 17/12/2018 Passed U/S. 143 (3) By The Ld.Dcit, Asmnt, Circle-2(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. Barred By Limitation The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao') Is Barred By Limitation In View Of The Express Provisions Of Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Wherein, The Order Should Be Passed Within One Month From The End Of The Month In Which Dispute

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate

Section 143Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 9(1)(vii)

assessee from Indian subsidiary measures MTR Foods Pvt.Ltd., to be taxable under the act as well as the DTAA as FTS. The draft assessment order was passed under section 143(3) read with 144C on 27/12/2017 arriving at a taxable income at ₹ 72,68,226/-. Aggrieved by the proposed addition

M/S.Nds Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 364/BANG/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 364/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Synamedia Ltd. [Formerly Known As ‘Nds Limited’], The Assistant C/O. M/S. Synamedia India Pvt. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Block 9A & 9B, Pritech Park, International Survey No. 51-64/4, Taxation, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Vs. Circle – 1(2), Bellandur Village, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aabcn2524L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Dilip, Standing Revenue By Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 16-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-12-2021

For Appellant: Shri

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234B

return of income for AY 2007-08. Various Submissions were filed before the Ld.AO in relation to notices issued. 2.2 In the draft assessment order served on the Assessee, the Assessing Officer has proposed to make the following additions: i) Treatment of receipts on account of supply of software license

Cisco Systems Services B V India Branch, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2888/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(OSD)

Section 143(3)

accordance with the law.” 2. The assessee has also raised additional ground and modified specific ground as follows:- “Additional Ground — Challenging validity of draft assessment order passed in violation section 144C of the Act 19. The learned AO has erred in law, in treating the draft order as final order ... Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra) . 5. The ld. AR submitted that the draft assessment order was passed on 21.12.2016 with a mention that such order was passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act. Further, the draft assessment order

M/S Software Paradigms Infotech Private Limited, Mysore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Mysore

ITA 2828/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2828/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Software Paradigms The Assistant Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 316-318, Spi City, Income Tax, Hebbal Industrial Area, Circle – 1 (1), Mysuru – 570016. Mysuru. Vs. Pan: Aalcs7583C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri G.S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 29-11-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 24.10.2017 Passed By The Acit, Circle – 1 (1), Mysuru U/S. 143(3) R.W. 92Ca R.W. 144C(5) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. 1. The Orders Of The Tpo / Drp / Assessing Officer In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Itself To Be Assessed On A Total Income Of Rs. 10,50,75,429/- As Against Income Of Rs. 6,77,58,220/- As Declared By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

proposed adjustment of Rs. 8,90,749/- under ITeS segment. 7. The Assessee filed objections before the Disputes Resolution Panel (DRP) against the draft assessment order passed by the Ld.AO wherein the addition suggested by the Ld.TPO as adjustment to ALP was added to the total income of the assessee

M/S. Finastra Software Solutions (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2695/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.2695/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Finastra Software Solutions (India) Vs. The Acit, Private Limited, Circle - 4(1)(2), [Formerly Known As Misys Software Solutions Bengaluru. (India) Pvt. Ltd.,], 4Th To 6Th Floor, North Tower, Virgo Building, Bagmane Constellation, Bengaluru – 500 037. Pan : Aaack 9067 G Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Arunkumar, Cit(Tp-2)(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 06.10.2017 Of Acit, Circle – 4(1)(2), Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Ay 2013-2014. 2. The Issue That Arises For Consideration In The Above Appeal Pertains To The Aggregate Transfer Pricing Adjustment (“Tp Adjustment”) Of Rs.14,33,66,140/- Made By The Transfer Pricing Officer (‘The Tpo’ For Short) Towards The International Transactions Of Provision Of Software Development Services (Rs.13,56,24,957/-) & Information Technology Enabled Services

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Arunkumar, CIT(TP-2)(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92

respect of which an adjustment of Rs. 82,40,297/- was made by the TPO. 5. Initially, a draft assessment order dated 02.12.2016 came to be passed by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’ for short) upon incorporating the aforesaid TP adjustments. Aggrieved, the assessee filed its objections before

San Disk India Device Design Centre Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 543/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

Rs.22,30,608/- respectively. Consequently, the aggregate TP adjustment was reworked to Rs.2,34,16,482/-. 3. In the draft assessment order dated 24.03.2014 passed by the AO, the aforesaid rectified Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment was incorporated. Further, out of the deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section ... Rs.57,12,093/- that was claimed by the Assessee in its return of income while computing its income chargeable to tax in the draft assessment order. 4. Aggrieved, the Assessee filed its objections before the DRP which, vide its directions dated 10.12.2014. granted partial relief to the Assessee by accepting

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Sandisk India Device Design Centre Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 341/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

Srf Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6620/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Srf Limited Vs. Acit The Galleria, Dlf Mayur Circle – 1, Vihar, Unit No.236 & 237, Ltu 2Nd Floor, Mayur Place, New Delhi Noida Link Road, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Extension, Delhi-110 091 Pan : Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Meera Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.12.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

suggested enhancement of the income of the assessee by Rs.216,468,063/- on account of Transfer Pricing Adjustment. AO thereafter passed draft assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(1) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2017 whereby he computed the total income at Rs.82,07,64,487/- and book ... profit at Rs.2,61,38,57,201/-. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order passed by AO, assessee carried the matter before the DRP. DRP 3 vide direction passed u/s 144C(5) of the Act dated 13.07.2018 directed the AO to incorporate its finding in respect of various objections

Astro Offshore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT, Int. Tax. Circle-1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 192/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Judcial Member & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(4)Section 144C(4)(b)Section 147Section 148

issued under Section 148 of the Act and subsequent statutory notices, the assessee repeatedly sought adjournments. Therefore, the Assessing Officer proceeded to frame draft assessment order under Section 147 read with section 144C(1) of the Act on 18.12.2019, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.45 ... Against the draft assessment order so passed, the assessee raised objections before learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)- 1, New Delhi, on 27.01.2020. While dealing with the objections of the assessee, learned DRP noticed that the draft assessment order was served on the assessee on 18.12.2019 through email. Of course

Turner Broadcasting System Asia Pacific Inc., New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-3(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4325/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. C. N. Prasad(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Turner Broadcasting Dcit (International System Asia Pacific Inc. Vs Taxation), Circle – 3 (1) (1) C/O Pricewaterhouse New Delhi Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Sucheta 1St Bhawan, Gate No.2, Floor, 11-A, Vishnu Digamber Marg, New Delhi-110002 Pan No.Aabct6254F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 271Section 9

matter of objection have been considered and decided by the DRP in its directions for A.Y.2010-11, 2012-13 and 2013-14 wherein the draft assessment orders of the Assessing Officer have been upheld. In the DRP directions dated 03.03.2017 for A.Y.2013-14 the DRP has upheld the AO’s draft order

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Verint Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2664/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat(Through Video Conferencing) Acit Vs. M/S. Verint Systems Circle – 26(1), (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Building No.8, Tower A, 2Nd Dlf Cyber City Phase-Ii, Gurgaon Pan : Aabcv 9348 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Darpan Karaplani, Adv. Revenue By Shri M. Baranwal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.12.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

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

dated 29.01.2015 proposed adjustment on ‘International transactions’ relating to provision of business/market support services of Rs.2,15,61,119/-. Thereafter, a draft assessment order was passed under section 144C of the Act which was served upon the assessee. AO noted that assessee did not avail the option of filing ... objection with the DRP within 30 days of the receipt of 3 the draft assessment order. Accordingly, final assessment order was passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act vide order dated 26.05.2015 and the total income was determined at Rs.5,89,75,413/-. Aggrieved

Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5121/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1000/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Nokia Solutions & Networks Oy, Vs Addl. Cit, Fi-02610, Karaporti-3, Espoo, International Taxation Finland-2058530-6 Range-2(2) & New Delhi C/O Srbc & Associates, Llp, Golf View, Corporate Tower-B Sector-42, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcn2300E Ita No. 1116/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 1117/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 6704/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 7419/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S Nokia Solutions & Networks Oy, Vs Dcit, Fi-02610, Karaporti-3, Espoo, International Taxation Finland-2058530-6 Range-2(2)(2) & New Delhi C/O Srbc & Associates, Llp, Golf View, Corporate Tower-B Sector-42, Gurgaon-122011 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcn2300E

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Gurgaon, the authorized -representatives of the assessee appeared from time to time, filed written submission and discussed the case. 5. After discussion, draft assessment order dated 31.03.2014 was passed and communicated to the assessee, after making the following observations and findings: ITA No. 5121/Del/2019 Nokia Solutions & Networks Oy “As mentioned

M/S Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy vs. DCIT, International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1117/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)