“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

General Reinsurance Corporation, United States of America vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the Ground No

ITA 1817/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) General Reinsurance Corporation Acit (International Taxation), 1209, Orange Street Delaware, Vs Circle -2(3)(2), Mumbai Room No. 610, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Wilmington, United States, 19801 Usa Bhavan, G Block, Bandrakurla Complex, Bandra (East), [Pan:Aahcg8162B] Mumbai-400051. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 9(1)

such observation, the assessing officer issued show cause notice dated 19.03.2024. The contents of show cause notice are reproduced in para 7 of draft assessment order. The assessing officer recorded that gross premium of Rs. 43.80 crore was received by assessee and 50% of which is found to be from ... India estimated 10% profit and thereby added Rs. 2.19 crore by referring Rule 10(1) of Income-tax Rules. The assessing officer passed draft assessment order dated 28.03.2024. The copy of draft assessment order was served upon the assessee. 4. On service of draft assessment order, the assessee exercised

Saic Motor Corporation Ltd, China vs. DCIT, International Tax, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1191/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2022-23] Saic Motor Corporation Assistant Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon, Room No.509, Building No.1, Vs Hsiidc Building, Vanijya Nikunj, Tower No.563, Songtao Road, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Pilot Free Trade Zone, Sanghai, Haryana-122001 China, Pan-Abfcs0870H Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Kunal Pandey, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rohit Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.01.2026 Order

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153(1)

along with questionnaire were issued to the assessee. Response filed by the assessee are as per records. The Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order (DAO) u/s 144C of the Act on 31.03.2024 proposing an addition of Rs. 23,11,82,270/- on supply of goods by the assessee ... constituting supervisory PE (erroneously mentioned as service PE by the Ld. AO) of the assessee in India in the draft assessment order passed is irrational, without any basis and liable to be reversed. 7.3. The Ld. DRP examined the findings of the AO, the submission offered by the assessee

Neetal Relan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3038/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

from the perusal of the approval, it could be seen that Adl. CIT while granting approval has observed that he has perused the draft assessment order and case records, without referring to any material which was considered by him such as seized ITA No.3037 & 3038/Del/2023 Neetal Relan Vs ACIT material ... including replies filed by the assessee with reference to the additions/ disallowance proposed in the drafts assessment order, etc. It was pointed out that the mandate of law u/s 153D is that the approval should be granted with an independent mind after considering the material on record for each assessment

Neetal Relan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3037/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

Sabre Marketing Nederland, Bv, Netherlands vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2) Int. Tax., New Delhi

ITA 381/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

India and had applied 15% attribution of profits resulting from booking fee generated from India to the PE. Accordingly in the draft assessment order, the Learned AO proposed determined the income of the Assessee at the rate of 15 percent to the PE in India of total business receipts

Sabre Marketing Nederland, Bv, Netherlands vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 7534/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

Sabre Marketing Nederland, Bv, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 410/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Nayna Mukeshkumar Kotecha, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statical purpose

ITA 187/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Shingala, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

proposed to be completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1). Tax and interest chargeable will be calculated on income on finalization of Draft Assessment Order and demand will be raised accordingly. Penalty proceeding will also be initiated upon finalization of the Draft Assessment Order. The assessee may prefer ... appeal against this Draft Assessment Order before the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) within 30 days. If no such communication is received within a period of 30 days, it will be deemed as acceptance of this Draft Order by the assessee and final order will be passed within

Mrs. Uma Aarun Patil, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 1974/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk

Section 24

assessee was selected under scrutiny through CASS, accordingly notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) respectively were issued to the assessee. A draft assessment order was also issued to the assessee. After considering the reply of the assessee, the assessment was completed

Marks and Spencer (India) Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 1937/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

115of Appeal set for relevant extract of the TP order. 10. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre (‘AO’) proceeded to pass draft assessment order by considering the adjustments proposed by the TPO and referred pages 90 to 93 of Appeal set which is the copy of the draft ... assessment order. 11. Aggrieved by the adjustment made in TP Order and draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (‘ld. DRP’) which also upheld the adjustment made in the draft 5 assessment order vide its directions dated June 24, 2022 and referred pages

Ishares Core Msci Total International Stock Etf (As A Successor to Ishare Core Taotal International Stock Mauritius Company ), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (Int. Tax)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6774/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailishares Core Msci Emerging Markets Etf (As A Successor To Ishares Core Emerging Markets Mauritius Company) C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, ............... Appellant Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aafci3337N V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Tax) - 2(2)(2) Room No.606, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, ……………… Respondent C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 Ishares Msci All Country Asia Ex Japan Etf C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aabti7439L ............... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Pranav GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

placed reliance upon several judicial pronouncements, wherein a similar issue was decided in favour of the taxpayer. 8. The Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide draft assessment order dated 26/03/2025 passed under section 144C(1) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that the computation ... under section 111A of the Act Net Short-term capital gains 950,33,72,269 62,90,458 9. Accordingly, the AO, vide draft assessment order, proposed to compute the net short-term capital gains amounting to Rs. 950,33,72,269 taxable at 15% under section 111A

Ishares Core Msci Emerging Markets Etf (As A Successor to Ishares Core Emerging Markets Mauritius Company, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Tp) 2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6051/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Pranav GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

Ishares Msci All Country Asia Ex Japan Etf, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int. Tax)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6050/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranav GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

placed reliance upon several judicial pronouncements, wherein a similar issue was decided in favour of the taxpayer. 8. The Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide draft assessment order dated 26/03/2025 passed under section 144C(1) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that the computation ... under section 111A of the Act 950,33,72,269 62,90,458 Net Short-term capital gains 9. Accordingly, the AO, vide draft assessment order, proposed to compute the net short-term capital gains amounting to Rs. 950,33,72,269 taxable at 15% under section 111A

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7294/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)

Business Transfer Agreements, the Valuation Report of Bansi S. Mehta & Co., Chartered Accountants, and some judicial rulings. The Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide draft assessment order dated 26.03.2015 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) of the Act, disagreed with the submission of the assessee on the following ... satisfy the definition of an asset to be recognised as an intangible asset as per Accounting Standard- 26. Accordingly, the AO, vide draft assessment order, disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee in respect of manufacturing contracts and supply/maintenance contracts and added the same to the total income

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 7393/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 32(1)

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 577/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)

Thermo Fisher Scienftific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 1236/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 32(1)

Ashish Kumar, Shravasti vs. ITO-1, Bahraich

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 736/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ashish Kumar V. The Ito-1 S/O Onkar Nath, Bardehra Bahraich Bharigan, Pathpur, Ekauna Shravasti (U.P) Tan/Pan:Deqpk8563B (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Raghunath Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.01.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Of Rs.11,50,000/- In His Bank Account No.4666020000005 Maintained With Bank Of Baroda, Bahraich, During The Demonetization Period. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice To The Assessee Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee To The Notice Issued Under

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

demonetization period. However, there was still no response from the assessee. The AO, thereafter, issued a show cause notice along with the Draft Assessment Order and since there was again no response to the show cause notice, the AO treated the entire cash deposits of Rs.11

Dipankar Dutta, Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward - 54(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2300/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2300/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Dipankar Dutta,…………………….………...……Appellant 115, Sita Nath Bose Bye Lane, Salkia, Howrah-711106, W.B. [Pan:Acypd1204F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-54(1), Kolkata, Bamboo Villa, Central Revenue Building, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700014 Appearances By: Shri J.M. Thard, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Abhijit Adhikari, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68

assessee fixing the date for 2 Dipankar Dutta compliance on 18.03.2022 to substantiate his accommodation entries of Rs.11,43,673/- along with draft assessment order stating as to why making addition/disallowances amount should not be passed. The assessee was required to furnish the details of amount received with documents

ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Acuity Knowledge Centre(India) Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2334/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Mansa Ananthan, Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J, CIT-DR

Section 250Section 37Section 43B

adjustment of Rs. 26,66,13,390/- was proposed by the TPO. The AO incorporated the same in the draft assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act. 41. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). 42. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee among