← 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

Faisal Badruddin Shitware, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Int Tax Ward)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4081/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrifaisal Badruddin Ao Ward 4(2)(1), Kautilya Shitware Bhavan, Bandra Kurla 307, 1A, Delux Nagar Vs. Complex, Mumbai 400051 Building, Jeevan Baug, Post Room No. 209, 2Nd Floor, Office Road, Mumbra, Thane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 400612 Mumbai 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Bvops1660L (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri. Nishit Gandhi /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ao Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai Dated 17.12.2024 Passed As Per The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar SR. DR
Section 115BSection 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 151ASection 153Section 5Section 69

India and therefore no income escaping assessment during the relevant year. iii. To the admission of the Ld. AO himself as per the draft assessment order, the income alleged to have escaped assessment is Rs.31,33,620/- and therefore the initiation of re-assessment is bad in law since ... Validity of Reassessment. 6. The assessee has submitted that the entire reassessment was bad in law since as per the draft assessment order, the Ld. AO had held that income alleged to have escaped assessment was Rs. 31,33,620/- and, therefore, the initiation of reassessment

Pawan Kumar Agrawal, Raigarh vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 513/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Raipur22 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.513/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Pawan Kumar Agrawal Lal Tanki, Bus Stand Road, Raigarh (C.G.)-496 001 Pan: Acipa0094L

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153D

Joint Commissioner to verify the issues raised by the 10 Pawan Kumar Agrawal Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Assessing Officer in the draft assessment order and apply his mind to ascertain as to whether the required procedure has been followed by the Assessing Officer or not in framing the assessment ... leave no room for doubt that approval with respect to "each assessment year" is to be obtained by the Assessing Officer on the draft assessment order before passing the assessment order under Section 153A." [Emphasis supplied] 12. It is observed that the Court in the case of Sapna Gupta (supra

Sharada Electors Private Limited, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune-3, Pune

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

ITA 1432/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

prejudicial to the interest of revenue. d) Disallowance of Rs.19,45,124 u/s 40(a) (ia) for non deduction of Tax:- In the draft assessment order, the FAO noted that in its submission dated 10.03.2022, the assessee submitted that the required TDS has not been deducted on payment made ... amount of Rs. 19,45,124/- was added to the total income of the assessee in the draft assessment order. However, on going through the reply of assessee dated 28.03.2022, it is noted that in reply to para 6 of the SCN, the assessee categorically admitted that for the proposed

Birla Carbon India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai - 5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3768/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyabirla Carbon India Private Limited The Principal Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Aditya Birla Centre, Income Tax Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Aaykar S. K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Vs. Mumbai-400 030 Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aascs 9916 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Respondent By : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: In The Present Appeal, The Assessee Has Called Into Question The Validity Of The Order Dated 25.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld.Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Thought Multiple Grounds Have Been Raised In The Memorandum Of Appeal, However, The Assessee Has Raised A Pertinent Preliminary Issue, Challenging The Competence & Jurisdiction Of Ld. Pcit To Invoke Powers U/S. 263 Of The Act To Revise An Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144C(13) Of The Act, In Pursuance To The Directions Of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld. Drp).

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 263Section 92C

length had suggested an adjustment of Rs.94,58,84,979/-. In terms with the adjustment suggested by the TPO, the A.O. framed a draft assessment order u/s. 144C(1) of the Act on 22.09.2021. 5. After receiving the draft assessment order as aforesaid, the assessee raised objections before ... nowhere mentioned that the final assessment order is passed after the direction of DRP. Admittedly, this is not a case, where draft assessment order is being revised. This is a case where final assessment order passed pursuant to the direction of DRP u/s. 144(3) is being revised by Ld.CIT

Isat Africa Limited Fzc, United Arab Emirates vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the final assessment order passed by AO is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed in above terms

ITA 832/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanisat Africa Limited Fzc Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Office No. 5 Pre-Fab, C Phase Ii, Of Income Tax Fujairah Free Zone Fujairah, Dubai, International Tax Circle- United Arab Emirates, Dubai - 2(2)(2) 999999 Mumbai, Maharashtra. Pan – Aagci8661Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 148ASection 195Section 201Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

right to use of the equipment for bandwidth and hence, it shall qualify to be royalty for the use of process. In the draft assessment order, the amount paid by the Indian entity was considered to be taxed as royality and the income was assessed ... assessee has filed objections before the Hon‟ble DRP stating therein that the view taken by the AO in the draft assessment order was contrary to the actual facts pattern of the assessee because the income earned is not towards allowing any use or right to use of equipment

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds No

ITA 2259/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 253(1)(d)Section 92C(3)

transaction at 10% in the hands of the assessee. 2.3 On receipt of the order passed under 92 CA (3), the Ld.AO passed draft assessment order on 14/06/2021 by proposing further addition in the hands of the assessee as under: • income from royalty and FTS taxed on accrual basis against ... between the Indian entity and assessee as a composite contract (protectively) amounting to ₹1,64,43,813/- 2.4 On receipt of the draft assessment order, assessee filed objections before the DRP 2.5 The DRP vide its directions dated 30/03/2022 confirmed the additions proposed by the Ld.AO. 2.6 On receipt

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds No

ITA 1615/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 253(1)(d)Section 92C(3)

transaction at 10% in the hands of the assessee. 2.3 On receipt of the order passed under 92 CA (3), the Ld.AO passed draft assessment order on 14/06/2021 by proposing further addition in the hands of the assessee as under: • income from royalty and FTS taxed on accrual basis against ... between the Indian entity and assessee as a composite contract (protectively) amounting to ₹1,64,43,813/- 2.4 On receipt of the draft assessment order, assessee filed objections before the DRP 2.5 The DRP vide its directions dated 30/03/2022 confirmed the additions proposed by the Ld.AO. 2.6 On receipt

Basudeo Soni, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 35(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 4894/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4894/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Basudeo Soni, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O B-50, Lgf, South Extension-Ii, Ward-35(1), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agyps4983N Assessee By: Sh. Saantanu Jain, Adv. & Ms. Jahanvi Khanna, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025

For Appellant: Sh. Saantanu Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 29A

section 151. Hence, the orders under section 148A(d) and the notices under section 148 are quashed. As a corollary, the draft assessment orders under section 144B/144C cannot survive and are also quashed. 16. These writ petitions are allowed on the above terms. There will be no order

Vasudev Garg, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle 1 Faridabad, Faridabad

ITA 3176/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3169/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 3170/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 3171/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 3172/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 3173/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 3174/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 3175/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 3176/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Vasudev Garg, Vs Dcit, Fca 50, Mukesh Colony, Ballabgarh, Central Circle-1, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aflpg8975Q Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: The Assessee’S Eight Appeals

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)

Assessing Officer and considered at the time of approval; and c) The relevant seized documents were duly verified before the passing of the draft assessment order.  These categorical findings recorded in the approval order itself dispel the allegation of non-application of mind. They demonstrate that the Addl ... mandates that the appraisal report is shared with both the Assessing Officer and supervisory authorities.  Therefore, much prior to the forwarding of the draft assessment order, the Addl. CIT was well- informed about the facts and issues. The fact that approval was granted on the same day as receipt

Vasudev Garg, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle 1 Faridabad, Faridabad

ITA 3175/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3169/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 3170/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 3171/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 3172/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 3173/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 3174/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 3175/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 3176/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Vasudev Garg, Vs Dcit, Fca 50, Mukesh Colony, Ballabgarh, Central Circle-1, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aflpg8975Q Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: The Assessee’S Eight Appeals

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)

Assessing Officer and considered at the time of approval; and c) The relevant seized documents were duly verified before the passing of the draft assessment order.  These categorical findings recorded in the approval order itself dispel the allegation of non-application of mind. They demonstrate that the Addl ... mandates that the appraisal report is shared with both the Assessing Officer and supervisory authorities.  Therefore, much prior to the forwarding of the draft assessment order, the Addl. CIT was well- informed about the facts and issues. The fact that approval was granted on the same day as receipt

Vasudev Garg, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle 1 Faridabad, Faridabad

ITA 3174/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3169/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 3170/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 3171/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 3172/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 3173/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 3174/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 3175/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 3176/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Vasudev Garg, Vs Dcit, Fca 50, Mukesh Colony, Ballabgarh, Central Circle-1, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aflpg8975Q Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: The Assessee’S Eight Appeals

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)

Assessing Officer and considered at the time of approval; and c) The relevant seized documents were duly verified before the passing of the draft assessment order.  These categorical findings recorded in the approval order itself dispel the allegation of non-application of mind. They demonstrate that the Addl ... mandates that the appraisal report is shared with both the Assessing Officer and supervisory authorities.  Therefore, much prior to the forwarding of the draft assessment order, the Addl. CIT was well- informed about the facts and issues. The fact that approval was granted on the same day as receipt

Vasudev Garg, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Cricle 1 Faridabad, Faridabad

ITA 3173/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3169/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 3170/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 3171/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 3172/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 3173/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 3174/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 3175/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 3176/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Vasudev Garg, Vs Dcit, Fca 50, Mukesh Colony, Ballabgarh, Central Circle-1, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aflpg8975Q Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: The Assessee’S Eight Appeals

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)

Assessing Officer and considered at the time of approval; and c) The relevant seized documents were duly verified before the passing of the draft assessment order.  These categorical findings recorded in the approval order itself dispel the allegation of non-application of mind. They demonstrate that the Addl ... mandates that the appraisal report is shared with both the Assessing Officer and supervisory authorities.  Therefore, much prior to the forwarding of the draft assessment order, the Addl. CIT was well- informed about the facts and issues. The fact that approval was granted on the same day as receipt

Vasudev Garg, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle 1 Faridabad, Faridabad

ITA 3172/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3169/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 3170/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 3171/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 3172/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 3173/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 3174/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 3175/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 3176/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Vasudev Garg, Vs Dcit, Fca 50, Mukesh Colony, Ballabgarh, Central Circle-1, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aflpg8975Q Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: The Assessee’S Eight Appeals

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)

Assessing Officer and considered at the time of approval; and c) The relevant seized documents were duly verified before the passing of the draft assessment order.  These categorical findings recorded in the approval order itself dispel the allegation of non-application of mind. They demonstrate that the Addl ... mandates that the appraisal report is shared with both the Assessing Officer and supervisory authorities.  Therefore, much prior to the forwarding of the draft assessment order, the Addl. CIT was well- informed about the facts and issues. The fact that approval was granted on the same day as receipt

Vasudev Garg, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle 1 Faridabad, Faridabad

ITA 3171/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3169/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 3170/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 3171/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 3172/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 3173/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 3174/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 3175/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 3176/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Vasudev Garg, Vs Dcit, Fca 50, Mukesh Colony, Ballabgarh, Central Circle-1, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aflpg8975Q Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: The Assessee’S Eight Appeals

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)

Assessing Officer and considered at the time of approval; and c) The relevant seized documents were duly verified before the passing of the draft assessment order.  These categorical findings recorded in the approval order itself dispel the allegation of non-application of mind. They demonstrate that the Addl ... mandates that the appraisal report is shared with both the Assessing Officer and supervisory authorities.  Therefore, much prior to the forwarding of the draft assessment order, the Addl. CIT was well- informed about the facts and issues. The fact that approval was granted on the same day as receipt

Vasudev Garg, Faridabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 Faridabad, Faridabad

ITA 3170/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3169/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 3170/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 3171/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 3172/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 3173/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 3174/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 3175/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 3176/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Vasudev Garg, Vs Dcit, Fca 50, Mukesh Colony, Ballabgarh, Central Circle-1, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aflpg8975Q Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: The Assessee’S Eight Appeals

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)

Assessing Officer and considered at the time of approval; and c) The relevant seized documents were duly verified before the passing of the draft assessment order.  These categorical findings recorded in the approval order itself dispel the allegation of non-application of mind. They demonstrate that the Addl ... mandates that the appraisal report is shared with both the Assessing Officer and supervisory authorities.  Therefore, much prior to the forwarding of the draft assessment order, the Addl. CIT was well- informed about the facts and issues. The fact that approval was granted on the same day as receipt

Vasudev Garg, Faridabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle1 Fbd, Faridabad

ITA 3169/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3169/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 3170/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 3171/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 3172/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 3173/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 3174/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 3175/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 3176/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Vasudev Garg, Vs Dcit, Fca 50, Mukesh Colony, Ballabgarh, Central Circle-1, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aflpg8975Q Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: The Assessee’S Eight Appeals

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)

Assessing Officer and considered at the time of approval; and c) The relevant seized documents were duly verified before the passing of the draft assessment order.  These categorical findings recorded in the approval order itself dispel the allegation of non-application of mind. They demonstrate that the Addl ... mandates that the appraisal report is shared with both the Assessing Officer and supervisory authorities.  Therefore, much prior to the forwarding of the draft assessment order, the Addl. CIT was well- informed about the facts and issues. The fact that approval was granted on the same day as receipt

DCIT, Central Circle 28, New Delhi vs. Manoj Kumar Singh, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and consequently, the appeal

ITA 3717/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Manoj Kumar Singh, Vs Dcit, S-17, Ground Floor, Central Circle-28, Panchsheel Enclave, Delhi. New Delhi - 110 017. Pan: Aaxps2824H Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra &For Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR
Section 131(3)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

perused the records. The preliminary and legal issue argued before us was questioning the approval given by the Ld. JCIT to the Draft Assessment Order, and as per the contentions of ld. Sr. Counsel the approval was given u/s 153D of the Act without application of mind. As for convenience ... relevant ground raised in the appeal of assessee is reproduced here below; Re: Approval given by the Ld. JCIT to the Draft Assessment Order was without application of mind. 2. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law on the facts of the case in confirming the Assessment Order

Manoj Kumar Singh, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-28, Delhi

ITA 2237/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmamanoj Kumar Singh, S-17, Ground Floor, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi - 110 017. Pan: Aaxps2824H Vs Dcit, Central Circle-28, Delhi.

Section 131(3)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

perused the records. The preliminary and legal issue argued before us was questioning the approval given by the Ld. JCIT to the Draft Assessment Order, and as per the contentions of ld. Sr. Counsel the approval was given u/s 153D of the Act without application of mind. As for convenience ... relevant ground raised in the appeal of assessee is reproduced here below; Re: Approval given by the Ld. JCIT to the Draft Assessment Order was without application of mind. 2. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law on the facts of the case in confirming the Assessment Order

Akansha Garg, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax-1(3)(1), Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 1383/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Akansha Garg, Vs. Acit, 313/36, C-1, Inderlok, Circle Int. Tax-1(3)(1), New Delhi-110035 New Delhi-110002

Section 143(3)Section 144C

year 2021-22. The ld. AR submitted that the Assessee obtained the said document from Karur Vysya Bank only after passing of the draft assessment order u/s 144C of the Act. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on the record. 5. It is evident ... that the said Karur Vysya Bank has issued certificate only after passing of the draft assessment order u/s 144C of the Act, which deprived the Assessee from producing the same before the DRP which ultimately resulted in passing the order impugned. Therefore, the interest of justice, we admit the additional

Pushpanjali Constructions Private Limited, Pushpanjali Palace, Dehli Gate, Agra vs. DCIT, Cen Cir Ghaziabad

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1001/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

period from 30-6-1995 to 31-12-1996 the approving authority was the CIT.) The Assessing Officer should submit the draft assessment order for such approval well in time. The submission of the draft order must be docketed in the order- sheet and a copy of the draft order ... search material, missing key discrepancies - On appeal, Tribunal set aside assessment order on ground that ACIT’s approval was based only on draft assessment order and failed to review assessment records and search material - High Court upheld Tribunal’s finding - Against said order revenue filed instant SLP - Whether having regard