← 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

A & B Associates, Thiruvananthapuram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 643/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by directing the AO to -

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Sr. D/R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

correct e-mail IDs of both the partners and issued a show cause notice u/s 144 proposing ex-parte assessment along with a draft assessment order in the following two correct e-mail addresses. i. arunkampadathil@gmail.com and ii. bilginthomas@gmail.com Though the e-mails were delivered, the partner who took over ... address of the firm, the assessee could not respond to any of the notices u/s 142(1), show cause notice and draft assessment order issued by the Assessing Officer. At last, the Assessing Officer had uploaded the show cause notice in the e-mail ID of the partners by middle

Concentrix Catalyst Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle - 1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 963/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri D Prabhakar Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153

assessees governed by section 153 of the Act. Under the special regime of section 144C of the Act, the assessee may accept the draft assessment order, object before the Ld. DRP, or file appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Once the assessee chooses to file objections before ... There is also no dispute about the facts that the final assessment order was passed by the Ld. AO on 29.07.2024, the draft assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) of the Act was passed on 29.09.2023, and the directions of Ld. DRP under section 144C

M/S Informatica Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Rage-3, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3356/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Saklani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271Section 274Section 28Section 37Section 40

determine the arm's length price of the international transactions. The ld. TPO proposed an adjustment of ₹ 214,441,168/– and accordingly the draft assessment order was passed on 11/12/2017 wherein the above transfer pricing adjustment was included. The ld. AO made a further adjustment/addition to the total income

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad vs. Mahalakshmi Light House, Hapur

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3513/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Mahalakshmi Light House, Income Tax 285, Avas Vikas Vihar, Room No. 201, First Floor, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh Cgo Complex, Hapur Chungi, Pan: Aatfm3627N Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent

Section 147Section 69C

another response dated 26/02/2022 was furnished by the Assessee and at Para 4 of the assessment order,it is mentioned regarding completion of draft assessment order and opportunity was given to the Assessee which was responded by the Assessee vide submission dated 25/03/2022. The Assessment order came to be passed

Income Tax Officer, Ashoknagar vs. Ajit Singh, Shivpuri

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 89/AGR/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Through Virtual Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ajit Singh, Ashoknagar, Village-Haatodh, Madhya Pradesh Post-Kota, Shivpuri (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ccnps7470K Assessee By : Shri Vipin Upadhyay, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Vipin Upadhyay, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(1)

information gathered from various sources vide issuance of notices under section 133(6) of the Act, a final show-cause notice enclosing the draft assessment order was issued to the Assessee on 24-03-2022. In response to the show-cause notice, the Assessee filed his written reply

ACIT-Circle-2(1)(1), Agra vs. Puneet Agarwal, Agra

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 338/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)

which was upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) (supra) and Hon’ble High Court held as under :- “The approval of draft assessment order being an in-built protection against any arbitrary or unjust exercise of power by the Assessing Officer, cannot be said to be a mechanical ... appreciate on factual and legal aspects to ascertain that the entire material has been examined by the Assessing Authority before preparing the draft assessment order. It is trite in law that the approval must be granted only on the basis of material available on record and the approval must reflect

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Agra vs. Sh. Vishwambhar Dayal Agarwal, Agra

ITA 337/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)

which was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) (supra) and Hon'ble High Court held as under :- "The approval of draft assessment order being an in-built protection against any arbitrary or unjust exercise of power by the Assessing Officer, cannot be said to be a mechanical ... appreciate on factual and legal aspects to ascertain that the entire material has been examined by the Assessing Authority before preparing the draft assessment order. It is trite in law that the approval must be granted only on the basis of material available on record and the approval must reflect

ACIT-Circel-2(1)(1), Agra vs. Mayank Agrawal, Agra

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 336/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)

which was upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) (supra) and Hon’ble High Court held as under :- “The approval of draft assessment order being an in-built protection against any arbitrary or unjust exercise of power by the Assessing Officer, cannot be said to be a mechanical ... appreciate on factual and legal aspects to ascertain that the entire material has been examined by the Assessing Authority before preparing the draft assessment order. It is trite in law that the approval must be granted only on the basis of material available on record and the approval must reflect

Vishwambhar Dayal Agarwal, Agra vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle2(1)(1), Agra

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 330/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)

which was upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) (supra) and Hon’ble High Court held as under :- “The approval of draft assessment order being an in-built protection against any arbitrary or unjust exercise of power by the Assessing Officer, cannot be said to be a mechanical ... appreciate on factual and legal aspects to ascertain that the entire material has been examined by the Assessing Authority before preparing the draft assessment order. It is trite in law that the approval must be granted only on the basis of material available on record and the approval must reflect

Hydrise Foods Private Limited, Uttar Pradesh, India vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, India

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

ITA 87/AGR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

87/AGR/2024 Hydrise Foods Pvt. Ltd ITA Nos. 86 & 87/AGR/2024 Hydrise Foods Pvt. Ltd 4. It is pertinent to note that the draft assessment order of various years were forwarded to the ld Addl. CIT by the ld AO vide letter dated 29.09.2021 and the same were approved u/s 153D ... convenience, the relevant operative portion of the said order is reproduced herein:- “10. Coming to the fact that the Assessing Officer while sending draft assessment orders has not enclosed any assessment folder, assessment material, search material seized from the assessee‟s premises and other related material including the replies filed

Hydrise Foods Private Limited, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, India

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

ITA 86/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

87/AGR/2024 Hydrise Foods Pvt. Ltd ITA Nos. 86 & 87/AGR/2024 Hydrise Foods Pvt. Ltd 4. It is pertinent to note that the draft assessment order of various years were forwarded to the ld Addl. CIT by the ld AO vide letter dated 29.09.2021 and the same were approved u/s 153D ... convenience, the relevant operative portion of the said order is reproduced herein:- “10. Coming to the fact that the Assessing Officer while sending draft assessment orders has not enclosed any assessment folder, assessment material, search material seized from the assessee‟s premises and other related material including the replies filed

DCIT, Swargate Pune vs. Cummins India Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1256/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 250Section 35

Rs.12,70,86,646/-. Ld.AO along with TP adjustments also, proposed various other additions amounting to Rs.68,14,79,984/- and passed a draft assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(1) r.w.s.144B of the Act vide order dated 03/09/2021. 5. Against the draft assessment order passed by the Faceless Assessing Officer

Cummins India Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 632/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 13Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 250Section 80J

Ld.AO along with TP adjustments also, proposed various other additions amounting to Rs. 68,14,79,984/- and passed a draft assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order dated 03/09/2021. 5. Against the draft assessment order passed by the Faceless Assessing Officer

Msl Fish Traders Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 333/CTK/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.332 & 333/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Msl Fish Traders Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Rooom No.14, Fish Market, Unit-4, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan No. : Aajcm 1080 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Adv राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 3 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 3 /12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.3.2025 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/11252/2017-18 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19, Respectively. 2. Shri D.Parida & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Has Filed Written Submission, Which Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida, CA and Shri ChitrasenFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, ld CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 246ASection 250Section 69

Nos.332 & 333/CTK/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) a) As mentioned in the approval the Ld. A.O. has sent the draft assessment orders on 10.5.2021 and the Ld. Addl. CIT has approved it on 12.5.2021 after a cursory look within a very short period of time ... Appeals) vide appeal order dated 25.3.2025. Hence, the Ld. Addl. CIT has not at all perused the seized documents with the draft assessment order but accorded approval mechanically to the erroneous draft assessment order. c) The Ld. JCIT has given approval in a couple of days to the addition

Msl Fish Traders Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 332/CTK/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.332 & 333/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Msl Fish Traders Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Rooom No.14, Fish Market, Unit-4, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan No. : Aajcm 1080 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Adv राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 3 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 3 /12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.3.2025 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/11252/2017-18 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19, Respectively. 2. Shri D.Parida & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Has Filed Written Submission, Which Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida, CA and Shri ChitrasenFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, ld CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 246ASection 250Section 69

Nos.332 & 333/CTK/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) a) As mentioned in the approval the Ld. A.O. has sent the draft assessment orders on 10.5.2021 and the Ld. Addl. CIT has approved it on 12.5.2021 after a cursory look within a very short period of time ... Appeals) vide appeal order dated 25.3.2025. Hence, the Ld. Addl. CIT has not at all perused the seized documents with the draft assessment order but accorded approval mechanically to the erroneous draft assessment order. c) The Ld. JCIT has given approval in a couple of days to the addition

Netcracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle - 5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 730/HYD/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92C(3)

vide his order dated 31.03.2023 passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. Thereafter, the A.O. has passed a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) of the Income-tax Act on 28.09.2023 and 8 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, determined the total income ... Issued the notices. If the contention of the appellants/revenue was to hold some water, they must have passed the draft assessment order immediately on receipt of the order from the Tribunal, but instead, notice was issued by the DRP. In any case, it is a far cry for the revenue

Brightcom Group Limited (Formerly Known As Lycos Internet Limited), Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 1862/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025AY 2013-14
Section 145Section 92BSection 92C

completed the assessment after considering the Transfer Pricing Officer’s Report, apart from the non-transfer pricing issues and passed the draft assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 92CA(3) of the Act, dated 31.12.2016 assessing the total income of the assessee to Rs. 23,53,06,973/- by making ... along with addition of book profit u/s 115JB of Rs. 10,57,25,727/-. 6. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, assessee has filed objections before Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) on 27.01.2017. Considering the objections of the assessee, Hon'ble DRP has issued direction vide order dated 04.09.2017 making suitable

Iqvia Ag, Switzerland vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Internaltional Taxation) - 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 4549/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 90(2)

under the concept of Fees for technical services, both under the Indo-Swiss DTAA as well as under the Act. Accordingly, in the draft assessment order, ITA No. 3359 & 4549/Mum/2023 IQVIA AG the subscription fees was treated as Royalty / Fees for Technical services taxable @ 10% as per Indo-Switzerland Treaty ... Mumbai has deleted the impugned addition made by the assessing officer by treating the subscription income as royalty. However, the assessing officer vide draft assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C dated 24.09.2021 has not agreed with the submission of the assessee and held that subscription fees received

Iqvia Ag, Switzerland vs. The Income Tax Officer (International Taxation) - 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 3359/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 90(2)

under the concept of Fees for technical services, both under the Indo-Swiss DTAA as well as under the Act. Accordingly, in the draft assessment order, ITA No. 3359 & 4549/Mum/2023 IQVIA AG the subscription fees was treated as Royalty / Fees for Technical services taxable @ 10% as per Indo-Switzerland Treaty ... Mumbai has deleted the impugned addition made by the assessing officer by treating the subscription income as royalty. However, the assessing officer vide draft assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C dated 24.09.2021 has not agreed with the submission of the assessee and held that subscription fees received

Balaji Powertronics, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 43(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2743/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Balaji Powertronics, Vs. Dcit, Circle-43(1), H-56, Udyog Nagar, New Delhi Main Rohtak Road, Delhi – 1100 41 Pan :Aagfb0501M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 80Section 928A

After receipt of the TPO order, the Ld. AO issued the draft order dated 24.03.2021 under Section 144C of the Act. 4. Against draft assessment order dated 24.03.2021, the appellant/assessee preferred objections before Ld. Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-I, New Delhi which were decided