“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

M/S. Tdi Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3935/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Respondent: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Advocate &

Section 143(3)Section 153D

office letter F. No. DCIT/CC-18/2010-11/568 dated 31.12.2010 on the above mentioned subject. In view of your letter, approval is hereby granted to the draft assessment orders in the following cases:- S. No. Name of the Assessee Assessment Year Assessed Income (Rs.) 1. M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure (Panipat ... facts of the instant case HIGH COURT OF |-No_Assessment records DELHI in the case were sent along with of PCIT vs. Anuj draft assessment order Bansal 368/2023 ITA -There were infirmities in the figures of Original Return of income_and Assessed income. Appellant has not been able to prove

M/S. Taneja Developers & Infra Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5579/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153D

office letter F. No. DCIT/CC-18/2010-11/568 dated 31.12.2010 on the above mentioned subject. In view of your letter, approval is hereby granted to the draft assessment orders in the following cases:- S. No. 1. Name of the Assessee M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure (Panipat) Ltd. Assessment Year 2006-07 Assessed Income ... facts of the instant case HIGH COURT OF | -No_Assessment records DELHI in the case | were sent along with of PCIT vs. Anuj | draft assessment order Bansal 368/2023 ITA July 13,2023 Dated -There were infirmities in the figures of Original Return of income_and Assessed income. Appellant

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5560/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Respondent: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Advocate &

Section 143(3)Section 153D

office letter F. No. DCIT/CC-18/2010-11/568 dated 31.12.2010 on the above mentioned subject. In view of your letter, approval is hereby granted to the draft assessment orders in the following cases:- S. No. Name of the Assessee Assessment Year Assessed Income (Rs.) 1. M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure (Panipat ... facts of the instant case HIGH COURT OF |-No_Assessment records DELHI in the case were sent along with of PCIT vs. Anuj draft assessment order Bansal 368/2023 ITA Dated- Appellant has not been able to prove that its case and facts are in alliance with the cited case. July

Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT(Intl. Tax.) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 862/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

dated 21.03.2023 requiring the assessee to submit documentary evidence regarding the bank deposit, investment in mutual fund etc. on or before 24.03.2023. A draft assessment order Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. under section 144C(1) of the IT Act was passed in this case on 27.03.2023 and was duly served

Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT(Intl. Tax), Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 861/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

Andante Foods LLP, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

Appeal are allowed, and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1723/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Respondent: Shri Harsha M., CA

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

dated 19.7.2024 wherein the total income of the assessee is assessed at Rs.3,55,41,310 pursuant to the draft assessment order passed u/s. 144C(1) of the Act dated Page 2 of 12 21.9.2023 and TP order u/s. 92CA(3) dated 27.6.2023 and directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel ... refer the matter back to the ld. TPO for determination of the ALP in accordance with law, thereafter he may pass a draft assessment order giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee to file objections before the DRP, if the assessee so wishes. 21. Accordingly, both the grounds of appeal

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Mahindra Homes Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1212/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sriram a/w Mr. Samyak LohadeFor Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

delete the T.P. adjustment addition of Rs.16,45,67,968/- proposed by the TPO and made by the A.O. in the draft assessment order and accordingly, grounds of appeal Nos.2 to 13 of the assessee company are setting aside to TPO considering the findings of the Bench. Needless

Factive Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation )-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4706/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal & Factive Limited Asst. Cit(It)-2(3)(1) C/O. Price Waterhouse & Co. Llp 609, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, 252, Veer Savarkar Marg, C-41, C-43, G Block, Vs. Shivaji Park, Dadar, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 028 Bandra (E), Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aaccf 5745 J (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Shri Dhanesh Bafna A/W Appellant By Shri Yogesh Malpani & Ms. Kinjal Patel Respondent By : Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: Captioned Appeals By The Assessee Are Against The Final Assessment Orders Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), In Pursuance To The Directions Of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Ld. Drp' For Short) & Pertains To The Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since The Substantive Issue On Merits, Arising In The Appeals Are More Or Less Common In Both The Appeals, We Propose To Take Up Ita No. 4706/Mum/2023, Pertaining To A.Y. 2021-22, As The Lead Appeal. (A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23) Factive Limited Vs. Asst. Cit(It) 3. Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3 Are Basically On Legal Issues, Challenging The Validity Of The Final Assessment Order. At The Outset, Ld. Counsel Appearing For The Assessee Submitted That He Would Prefer To Address The Issues On Merits And, If Warranted, May Press The Legal Grounds.

For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

income u/s. 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 13(2) of India-UK DTAA. In similar line, he framed the draft assessment order adding back the amount of Rs.8,17,59,532/- as ‘royalty income’. 11. Against the draft assessment order so framed, the assessee raised objections ... Assessing Officer under Section 144C(5)..." Thus, the process before the DRP is a continuation of assessment proceeding as it is only the draft assessment order which is being challenged before it. The final assessment order is yet to be passed by the assessing officer. Hence

Harendra Sharma, Morena vs. Income Tax Officer 2(2) Gwalior, Gwalior

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

ITA 332/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Harendra Sharma, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bolenath Gupta, Adarsh Ward-2(2), Nagar, Gali No. 1, Lohiya Gwalior Bazar Porsa, Morena, Mp 476115 Pan: Cuqps8743C Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 145(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)

read with section 144B has not followed the procedures laid down u/s 144B of Income tax Act, being has not 4 passed the draft assessment order to be passed prior to passing of the order u/s 144 of Income tax Act, in absence of which the order passed

Sanjay Mehta, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur

ITA 201/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69B

Mehta. Initially, these additions were proposed for multiple assessment years, from 2015-16 to 2021-22 (except A.Y. 2019-20) while passing the draft assessment order under Section 144C(1).Against these draft assessment orders, the assessee filed objections before the DRP. The DRP, through its order dated 19.12.2024 under ... behalf of all the three directors of OM Kothari Group. b. Further, Panel has also gone through one image pasted in the draft assessment order, having “Details as on 17.04.2013” of flats sold in Pallacia project and found from S.NO NARY OF PERSON Rox ALDKEND OM PRAKASH ARORA (PRAVEEN TANBAL

D. E. Shaw India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1154/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1154/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2020-21) M/S. D.E. Shaw India Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Ltd., Hyderabad. Tax, Pan:Aaacd7214J Circle 8(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Adv. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. D E Shaw India Pvt. Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. Ao”) U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 27.06.2024 For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That There Is A Delay Of 66 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal, For Which The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons For Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. As Per Record, The Appeal Was Required To Be Filed On Or Before

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, SR-DR

Section 143(3)

dated 31.03.2023 suggested upward adjustment of Rs.1,69,05,538/- on account of interest on trade receivables. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed the draft assessment order on 28.09.2023. 8. Aggrieved with the draft assessment order passed by the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred objection before the Ld. DRP. In pursuance

M/S. Alternative for India Development, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-4, Chennai

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

ITA 1555/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1555/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Alternative For India Development, Income Tax Officer, No. 1, Vgn Nagar, Vs. Exemption Ward -4, Iyyappanthangal, Chennai. Kattupakkam Post, Chennai – 600 056. [Pan:Aaata-4184-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. K.Viswa Padmanabhan, Ca. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Shri. K.Viswa Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl.CIT

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)

filed only few documents and information to the AO during the assessment proceedings. Later, the AO issued a show cause notice along with draft assessment order dated 31.05.2021 proposing to disallow the following for want of cogent evidence: - Grant from companies under CSR Rs.94,76,902/- - Corpus donation made