“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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 3658/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 153Section 153ASection 153D

Assessment records Appellant has not been DELHI in the case were sent along with able to prove that its of PCIT vs. Anuj draft assessment order case and facts are in Bansal ITA alliance with the cited 368/2023 Dated -There were infirmities case. July 13,2023 in the figures ... 153D does not prescribe any specific procedure or method for the grant of approval. As long as Ld. JCIT is satisfied with the draft assessment order and conveys his approval, the mandate of law stands fulfilled. 7. In the present case, the approval was in fact granted under Section 153D

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 3657/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 153Section 153ASection 153D

COURT OF DELHI in the case of PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal ITA 368/2023 July 13,2023 -No_Assessment records were_sent along with draft assessment order -There were infirmities in the figures of Original Return of income Assessed income. -Addl. CIT did not apply his mind ... 153D does not prescribe any specific procedure or method for the grant of approval. As long as Ld. JCIT is satisfied with the draft assessment order and conveys his approval, the mandate of law stands fulfilled. 7. In the present case, the approval was in fact granted under Section 153D

Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3082/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 153Section 153ASection 153D

DELHI in the case of PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal ITA 368/2023 Dated- July 13,2023 -No_Assessment records were_sent along with draft assessment order -There were infirmities in the figures of Original Return of income and Assessed income. -Addl. CIT did not apply his mind ... 153D does not prescribe any specific procedure or method for the grant of approval. As long as Ld. JCIT is satisfied with the draft assessment order and conveys his approval, the mandate of law stands fulfilled. 7. In the present case, the approval was in fact granted under Section 153D

Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2821/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 153D

COURT OF DELHI in the case of PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal ITA 368/2023 July 13,2023 | -No_Assessment records were_sent along with draft assessment order | Appellant has not been able to prove that its case and facts are in alliance with the cited case. Dated- | There were infirmities ... 153D does not prescribe any specific procedure or method for the grant of approval. As long as Ld. JCIT is satisfied with the draft assessment order and conveys his approval, the mandate of law stands fulfilled. 7. In the present case, the approval was in fact granted under Section 153D

Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 2820/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 153Section 153ASection 153D

Dev Anand Bhatt, Haldwani vs. DDIT/ADIT Intl Lkn, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1/LKW/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2019-20 Dev Anand Bhatt, Dev Towers, Vs. Ddit/Adit, 1/251, Joshi Garden Nawabi Intl, Lucknow Road, Haldwani Pan:Anopb1987A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Prashant Kacker, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Noida Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 29.11.2024, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao, Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Income Tax Act On 28.04.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “I. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Erred In Confirming The Addition In Order U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(3) Of The Act Amounting To 42,50,737.00 Against Facts & Law. Ii The Appellant Respectfully, Submits As Under:- 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals (Cit-A) Has Without Going Into The Facts & Not Relying On The Practicality Of The Case Has Not Observed That The Appellant Had Rightly Offered Income For Tax. 2. That The Order Is Bad In Law, Not In Agreement With Facts & Is Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. Iii. The Appellant Craves To Leave To Add, Alter, Amend, And/Or To Modify Any Grounds Of Appeal, If Necessary.”

For Appellant: Sh. Prashant Kacker, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 250

result of this, he calculated the taxable profit at Rs.53,38,758/-. The said view point was confronted to the assessee vide a draft assessment order. The assessee was allowed time of 30 days to accept / file objections/ prefer an appeal to the DRP and vide his reply dated ... unsold flats which has been considered as opening stock in subsequent year when the remaining flats were sold. The proposal given in the draft assessment order was against accounting principles and it was also pointed out that there was a discrepancy in measurement as taken

Ananda Gorakhanath Pawar, Satara vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 3, Satara

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

ITA 1796/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1796/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ananda Gorakhanath Pawar, Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Satara. At Post Ambawade, Khatav, Satara- 415506. Pan : Blhpp6081R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri R. C. Doshi : Revenue By : Shri Milind Debaje Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Filed The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit Has Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant By Refusing To Condone The Delay Of 26 Days On Grounds Of Period Of Limitation, Notwithstanding The Fact That Appellant Has Submitted The Application & Explained The Reasons For Delay.

For Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 184ASection 4

Appellant before to prove genuineness of the deductions claimed. However, the learned AO did not provide any show cause notice and passed the draft assessment order. Accordingly, the Assessment order should be quashed. Further the Appellant would like to mention that it has received intimation from NFAC that the case

Temenos Headquarters Sa, Chennai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2022-

ITA 558/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 558/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2022-23 & S.A. No.: 50/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. No.558/Chny/2025] धनिाजरण वर्ज/Assessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krisnamoorthy, JCIT

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

income from Annual Recurring license fees Rs.11,11,70,515/-. 5. After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee. the AO issued a draft assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(1) of the Act dated 31.03.2024 by proposing to tax Annual Maintenance Services fees of Rs.11,11,70,515/- as ‘Fees ... Resolution Panel (DRP) on 29.04.2024. The DRP after hearing the case, passed an order u/s.144C(5) of the Act dated 26.12.2024 upholding the draft assessment order of the AO. As per the directions given by the DRP the AO passed the impugned assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C

Vazhoor Sudarsanan Thampi, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Ward-2(1), Bengaluru

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 893/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Ka. Y. 2015-16 Appellant Respondent Vazhoor Sudarshanan The Income Tax Officer Thampi International Taxation Vazhoor House, Ward 2 (1) T C 5/1892Valappad Bangalore Vallapad Beach Thrissur Kerala 680567 Pan Afxpt6193D For Appellant Shri Sidhesh N Gadi, Ca For Respondent Dr. Divya K J Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28-08-2025

Section 142Section 143Section 144Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

pursuance of direction of The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, Bangalore (The Learned DRP) Page 1 of 14 dated 27/11/2024 in draft assessment order passed by the AO under section 144C (1) of the Act dated 13/2/2024. 2. The assessee is aggrieved with the same and has preferred this appeal raising ... through the ITBA portal on various dates but same was not responded to. Accordingly, the learned assessing officer proceeded to pass a draft assessment order under section 144C (1) of the act on 13/2/2024 determining the total income of assessee at Rs 2,20,00,000/- by making addition

Accenture Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3457/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Accenture Solutions Private Limited Pr. Cit, 501, 5Th Floor, Plat 3, Godrej & Boycee Compound, Vikhroli (W), Vikhroli S.O., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 079 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar Respondent By : Shri Satya Pal Kumar Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Vp: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Assailing The Order Dated 20.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-6 (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. We Have Heard The Parties & Perused The Materials Available On Record. The Short Issue Arising For Consideration Is Whether The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144C(13) Of The Act, Can Be Subjected To Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S. 263 Of The Act. For Deciding This Issue, Few Necessary Facts Are Required To Be Considered. The Assessee Is A Resident Corporate Entity Engaged In The Business Of Providing Information Technology (It)/Information Technology Enabled Service (Ites) To Its Group Companies As Well As Consulting Services To Its Clients. For The Assessment Year Under Dispute, The Assessee Filed

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 263Section 80G

Pricing Officer (‘TPO’ for short) to determine the ALP of the international transaction. Be that as it may, the A.O., ultimately, framed a draft assessment order on 22.09.2021, determining the total income at Rs.32,92,97,81,572/-. 3. Against the draft assessment order, 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

Garware Fulflex India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6751/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153

Assessing Officer taking into consideration transfer pricing adjustment proposed by the Ld. TPO, issued the draft assessment order on 27.12.2023. The assessee filed objections against the draft assessment order before the Ld. DRP but could not succeed. Pursuant to the direction of the Ld. DRP, the Assessing Officer passed

Elentee Co. Ltd., Korea vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Noida

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 972/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Eleentec Co. Ld. Vs. Deputy/Assistant 37 Samsung-Ro268 Beon-Gil Director Of Income Tax, Yeongtong-Gu, Gyeonggi Do International Taxation, Republic Of Korea Noida, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aafce6530P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Himanshu S. Sinha, Adv, Sh. Prashant Mehar Chandani, Adv& Sh. Jainender Singh Kataria, Adv Revenue By Sh. M.S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2025

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153(1)

issued to the Assessee, in response to which Assessee filed its reply from time to time. 5 Elentec Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT A draft assessment order came to be passed on 31/03/2024 u/s 144C(1) of the Act proposing to enhance the Assessee’s total income ... applied an ad- hoc attribution rate of 35%, thereby attributing 1.05% of the total offshore sales to the PE. 4. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order dated 31/03/2024, the Assessee filed its objection before the DRP and the Ld. DRP vide order dated 20/12/2024, upheld the findings

Daoming Reflective Material India Private Limited, Haryana vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5293/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

adjustment of Rs.4,23,60,826/- and compute the ALP of the international transactions executed by the assessee. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order on 17th November, 2023 against which the assessee filed its objections before the DRP and the Ld. DRP vide its order dated 31st August

Deputy Commissioner, Delhi vs. Ravindra Singh, Greater Noida

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 2459/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

Section 132Section 153ASection 156Section 69Section 69A

Intl. Taxation), Bengaluru Vs. Cisco Systems Services B.V. (India Branch), (ITA No. 427/2022, 428/2022 and 429/2022) decided the similar issue wherein the draft assessment order u/s 144(C) of the Act was passed on 28.12.2018. Alongwith the draft assessment order, the demand notice u/s 156 of the Act was also

Deputy Commissioner, Delhi vs. Ravindra Singh, Greater Noida

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 2458/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Section 132Section 153ASection 156Section 69Section 69A

Deputy Commissioner, Delhi vs. Ravindra Singh, Greater Noida

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 2457/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Section 132Section 153ASection 156Section 69Section 69A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Ravindra Singh, Greater Noida

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 2456/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 153ASection 156Section 69Section 69A

Shakuntalam Investment and Leasing Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-01, New Delhi

ITA 135/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri R.P. Mall, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

सं. सं.आ.आ. / के.रें. -1/153D/2019-20/1548 दिनांक : 26/12/2019 सेवा मे, सहायक आयकर आयुक्त केंद्रीय वृत- 1, नई दिल्ली विषय:- Approval of draft assessment order u/s 153D of the I.T.Act 1961, in the case of M/s. Shakuntalum Investment & Leasing Ltd. PAN:AAACS4752J of M/s. Sachdeva Group ... Please refer to your office letter dated 25.12.2019 vide F.No. ACIT/CC- 1/153D/2019-20/1860 enclosing therewith draft assessment orders u/s.153A r.w.s 143(3) and u/s.143(3) r.w.s 153A of the I.T. Act 1961 for the A.Y. 2012-13 to 2018-19 for approval. 2. After perusing the draft assessment orders and case

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

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

ITA 6835/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 Takata India Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 25(1), (Now Joyson Anand Abhishek New Delhi Safety Systems Pvt Ltd.,) Plot No.20, Sector-5, Imt Manesar, Gurugram (Haryana)-122050 Pan/Gir No. Aacct 7200 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.K.Jadhav, CIT (DR)

T.P.Study and suggested an adjustment of Rs.13,81,10,475/-. After the arrival of Transfer Pricing order, the Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order vide order dated 16.3.2015 and made an addition of Rs.13.81 crores, as suggested by the Transfer Pricing Officer. Besides this, the Assessing Officer has also

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vipin Kapur, New Delhi

ITA 3788/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 153DSection 254(1)

Bansal ITA 368/2023 July 13,2023 Dated- Peculiar Facts of cases in mentioned in first col. -No_Assessment records were sent along with draft assessment order -There were infirmities in the figures of Original Return of income and Assessed income. -Addl. CIT did not apply his mind ... Income-tax v. Shiv Kumar Nayyar [2024] 163 taxmann.com (Delhi) -The approval order failed to make any mention of the fact that the draft assessment orders were perused at all, much less perusal of the same with an independent application of mind. Also, in this case of Shiv Kumar Nayyar