← 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

Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 is partly allowed

ITA 8229/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate; & MsFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal [CIT] – DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

8229/Del/2018 (Assessment year: 2014-15) : “1. The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing- 2(2)(2) („Ld. TPO‟), draft assessment order passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -16(2), New Delhi („Ld. AO‟) and the final assessment order passed, on the directions

Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 463/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “I-2”, New Delhi

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meera Shrivastava, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80ISection 92C

crores has been retained. The assessee has, nevertheless, impugned both the substantive and protective adjustments made relating to the AMP expenses. 8. Accordingly, Draft Assessment Order was passed by the Assessing Officer on 19.12.2019 and the income of the assessee was proposed to be determined ... Disallowance of loss on account of 16,00,000/- Floods in Chennai 9. Aggrieved with the additions / disallowances proposed in the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (herein referred to as the “DRP”). The DRP disposed of the objections preferred by the Assessee vide

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar vs. JCIT, Hisar

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

ITA 619/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 254Section 92C

2/1/2014 determining an upward adjustment of Rs. 72,10,14,453/-. In pursuance to the order of the TPO, the draft assessment order was framed by the AO on 31/3/2014. Thereafter, the assessee filed objections before Dispute Resolution Panel on 29.4.2014. After providing due opportunity to the assessee ... Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Facts in brief: Date of filing of return – 30.09.2010 Date of Order of the TPO – 02.01.2014 Date of Draft Assessment Order – 03.01.2014 Date of filing Objections before DRP – 29.04.2014 Date of Order of the DRP – 31.12.2014 Date of Assessment Order – 08.01.2015 6. Aggrieved with

DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Zaheer Mauritius, Noida

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 476/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit Vs. Zaheer Mauritius Circle – 3(1)(1), C/O. Srbc & Associates International Taxation Llp, 4Th & 5Th Floor, New Delhi Plot No.2B, Tower-2, Sector – 126, Noida-201 304 Pan No. Aaacw 7187 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Mrs. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By Shri Kumar Pranav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.09.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.10.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-43, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

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

selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 31.08.2015 and duly served on the assessee. Thereafter draft assessment order was passed on 27.09.2016 u/s 144C(1) r.w.s 143(3) of the Act which was duly served on the assessee. Thereafter, assessment was framed

Exlservices.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ltu, Circle- 1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7392/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat(Through Video Conferencing) Exlservices.Com (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit, 414, 4Th Floor, Plot No.10 Circle – 1, Nbcc Plaza & 11, Dlp Jasola Tower-B, Pushp Vihar, Dda District Centre, Saket, New Delhi New Delhi - 110025 Pan No. Aaace 5174 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Saksham Singhal, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 31.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.08.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 155JSection 271(1)(c)

books of the assessee. He submitted that the depreciation on goodwill was disallowed by the AO in the draft assessment order for A.Y. 2010- 11 but when the matter was carried before the DRP, the same was deleted. He further submitted that the Hon’ble Tribunal in assessee ... counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the disallowance of depreciation on good will made by the Assessing Officer in draft assessment order for A.Y 2010-11 was deleted by the DRP which was upheld by the Tribunal in ITA No. 302/DEL/2015. It is the say of the ld. counsel

M G Metalloy Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

ITA 3306/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Mg Metalloy Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, B-16, Sector-2, Noida, Central Circle, Pan: Aagcm5789D Noida (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 394Section 68

under:- F.No. DCIT/cc/Noida/S&S/153D/2016-17/2623 Dated: 30/12/2016 To, The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Aayakar Bhawan,Bhainsali Ground, Meerut. Sir, Sub: Draft assessment orders u/s 153A/153C/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in Apple Group (D.O.S 11/11/2014)- Approval u/s 153D of the I.T. Act, 1961- regarding. Please find herewith ... Enterprises Pvt. 17 Ltd., AAHCA8642G 2010-11 to 2013-14 M/S Mastermind Trade-in-Private 18 Ltd AAECM9435E 2009-10 to 2015-16 Draft assessment order received Late i.e. on 31/12/2016 Yours sincerely Beyond the time as per internal Action Plan. And thus having a very little time/ almost

York Tech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-25(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 635/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. and MsFor Respondent: Ms. Meera Srivastava, CIT-DR and Shri M. Baranwal, Sr.D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92B

assigned to individual assets and liabilities in such sales was not fulfilled in the present case. 9. Thereafter, the Ld. AO has passed draft assessment order on 14.11.2019. 10. Aggrieved by the Draft Assessment Order dated 14.11.19, the Assessee filed objections before the Hon'ble DRP against the variation proposed ... made in the Draft Assessment Order. 11. The Assessee also filed additional evidence vide letter dated 20.08.2020 before the Hon’ble DRP which were admitted by the Hon’ble DRP after considering remand report dated 10.12.2020 by the TPO. The Hon'ble DRP vide directions dated 9.03.2021 issued under section

Hcl Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3702/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 10Section 10ASection 271(1)

considering 31 undertakings registered with STPI under 13 mother licenses as independent undertakings eligible for deduction under section 10A of the Act. Draft assessment order was passed at a total income of Rs.2,16,07,60,309/-on 26/12/2008, without allowing the additional claim of deduction raised by the assessee

Telenor Asa, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1307/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1307/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Telenor Asa, Vs Dcit, C/O Vaish Associates Advocates, Circle-Gurgaon, Intl. Taxation, 1St Floor, Mohandev Building, 13, New Delhi-110002 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadct5705F Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Dr. Prabha Kant, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.08.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Prabha Kant, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 234B

taxed as per Article 7 of the Treaty read with section 44DA of the Act. 6. The Assessing Officer, in the draft assessment order, dated 28.03.2014, passed under section 143(3)/144C(1) of the Act, held that the assessee has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India in terms

Goodyear India Ltd., Faridabad vs. Neac, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 467/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17 Goodyear India Ltd., Vs Neac, Mathura Road, Ballabhgarh, Delhi. Faridabad, Haryana-121001. Pan-Aaacg3511H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Surendra Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2021

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234B

instead of 10,07,80,000/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was advised to enhance the income by Rs.10,07,80,000/-. Against the draft assessment order, the assessee filed its objection before the DRP-1, New Delhi who vide order dated 10.02.2021 sustained the finding

ACIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi vs. Smart Analyst India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3436/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & (Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143Section 154Section 92C

side no new address has been provided till date. Therefore, we are proceeding on the basis of the order of the TPO, draft assessment order, assessment orders and order of the CIT(A) as well as the are reproduced in those orders. 5. At the time of hearing

ACIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi vs. Smart Analyst India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 2568/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & (Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143Section 154Section 92C

side no new address has been provided till date. Therefore, we are proceeding on the basis of the order of the TPO, draft assessment order, assessment orders and order of the CIT(A) as well as the are reproduced in those orders. 5. At the time of hearing

Jas Forwarding Worldwide Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1687/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor advocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 40Section 92CSection 92C(2)

objections to the draft order passed by the Ld. AO under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) of the Act ("the draft assessment order"). The Hon'ble DRP while issuing directions under Section 144C(5) of the Act did not consider the facts and merits of Appellant ... given by the Ld. TPO in his order passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act and by the Ld. AO in his draft assessment order. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. TPO and the Ld. AO have erred in proposing

Jas Forwarding Worldwide Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2484/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor advocateFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal [CIT] – DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 40Section 92CSection 92C(2)

objections to the draft order passed by the Ld. AO under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) of the Act ("the draft assessment order"). The Hon'ble DRP while issuing directions under Section 144C(5) of the Act did not consider the facts and merits of Appellant ... given by the Ld. TPO in his order passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act and by the Ld. AO in his draft assessment order. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. TPO and the Ld. AO have erred in proposing

Expeditors International (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi

ITA 16/DEL/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Bhushan Shukla, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 92Section 92C

reference made by the Ld. AO suffers. from jurisdictional error as the Ld. 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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Expeditors International India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2231/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Bhushan Shukla, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 92Section 92C

reference made by the Ld. AO suffers. from jurisdictional error as the Ld. 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. Expeditors International (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. CIT(A), New Delhi

ITA 1854/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Bhushan Shukla, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 92Section 92C

reference made by the Ld. AO suffers. from jurisdictional error as the Ld. 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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Expeditors International India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2639/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Bhushan Shukla, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 92Section 92C

reference made by the Ld. AO suffers. from jurisdictional error as the Ld. 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 Contitech India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5222/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

appeal was pending before the appellate authorities. It accordingly did not interfere with the addition proposed by the AO in the draft assessment order. AO thereafter in the assessment order pursuant to the direction of DRP disallowed the payment of Rs.2,32,15,000/- to Roulunds Fabriker, Denmark. Assessee

M/S Contitech India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5088/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

appeal was pending before the appellate authorities. It accordingly did not interfere with the addition proposed by the AO in the draft assessment order. AO thereafter in the assessment order pursuant to the direction of DRP disallowed the payment of Rs.2,32,15,000/- to Roulunds Fabriker, Denmark. Assessee