“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

Samsung Sdi India Pvt Ltd, Noida vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre New Delhi, New Delhi

ITA 3472/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

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

proposed total adjustment of INR 8,65,25,835/- to the ALP of international transactions carried out by the assessee. Thereafter, the draft assessment order was passed on 30.08.2023 wherein adjustments proposed by the TPO were added to the total income of the assessee and total income was assessed

Homelife Buildcon Private Limited, Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. Smt. Samandeep Kaur DCIT-Central Circle-1, Ludhiana, Punjab

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

ITA 880/CHANDI/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jul 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 880/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab-142027 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCH5690M अपीलार्थी/Appellant बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Ludhiana, Punjab प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1036/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 बनाम Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rohit Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 115BSection 153D

approval in the above mentioned case for A,.Y. 2021-22 is justified and fair. 3. In view of above facts, the draft assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 submitted by the AO in the case of M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. ( PAN AABCH5690M

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

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

ITA 1036/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 880/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab-142027 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCH5690M अपीलार्थी/Appellant The DCIT Central Circle-1 Ludhiana, Punjab प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1036/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Lu

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rohit Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 115BSection 153D

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle 1 Chennai, Chennai vs. Prudential Sugar Corporation Limited, Chitoor

ITA 2298/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2298/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Prudential Sugar Corporation Income Tax, Vs. Limited, Ltu, Circle -1, Prudential Nagar, Chennai. Koppedu Post, Nindra, Mandal – 517 587. [Pan:Aaacp-4338-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate

Section 50Section 50B

nature of misreporting as per provisions of section 270A. 6. A show cause notice dated 25.03.2021 was issued to the assessee along with Draft Assessment Order. The assessee was asked to submit its reply by 30.03.2021. In its response dated 30.03.2021, the assessee has stated the following: That we invested ... data available. 6.1 The arguments given by the assessee in its reply to show cause notice have already been considered while making the Draft assessment order. The plea taken by the assessee that the transactions were done through banking channel, hence, they are absolutely genuine and legitimate. Such a plea

Edenred Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Int. Taxational 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 749/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailedenred Pte Ltd., C/O. Walker Chandiok & Co. Llp, 16Th Floor, Tower Lll, One International Center, S B Marg, Prabhadevi (West), ............... Appellant Mumbai-400013. Pan : Aacce8636P V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – International Taxation -2(2)(1), Room No. 606, 6Th Floor, ……………… Respondent Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Singh/Ms. Shivali Mhatre Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh/Ms. Shivali MhatreFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Charges (IDC) 64,65,974 Management Service Fees 2. 7,41,30,846 Total Income 4. The AO, vide draft assessment order dated 20/03/2024 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, treated the aforesaid receipts on account of Infrastructure Data Centre (‘IDC’) charges, and Management Service Fees as royalty ... charges were held not to be taxable as Royalty under the provisions of the Act and the India-Singapore DTAA. The AO vide draft assessment order following the directions issued by the learned DRP in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22 treated

Soumendra Kumar Mohanty, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

ITA 284/CTK/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Jul 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.284-289/Ctk/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 To 2016-2017) Soumendra Kumar Mohanty Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Plot No.130, Sm Tower, Bhubaneswar Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar Pan No.: Abfpm 9538 D (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.290/Ctk/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Modern Engineering & Management Foundation, Banaparia, Kuruda, Balasore Pan No. : Aactm 1058 J Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri K.C.Jena & Mohit Sheth, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/07/2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Id. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 31.03.2025, For The

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Jena & Mohit Sheth, ArsFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 153DSection 246A

documents verified within a day (if part periods are covered). Table 'A' Name of the assessee Assessment Years/ Years Date of receipt of draft assessment order Date of approval Full working day (s) availabl e Remarks Soumendra Kumar Mohanty ... documents verified within a day (if part periods are covered). Table 'A' Name of the assessee Assessment Years/ Years Date of receipt of draft assessment order Date of approval Full working day (s) availabl e Remarks Soumendra Kumar Mohanty

Manish Kumar Agrawal, Neemuch vs. NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 736/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)

case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned reassessment order u/S 147 r.w.s. 144B without first issuing Draft Assessment Order which is bad in law in view of provisions as envisaged in section 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961.” The assessee filed a Written

Virendra Prakash Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 286/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT (Th. VC)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69

cash as 'on money. The details of proposed variation/enhancement in your assessed income are under: In case of Sh. Virendra Prakash Sharma, in Draft Assessment Orders for AY 2015-16 to AY 2020-21, AO has proposed on addition of Rs 27,50,000/- in his hands for these years ... Form 354, which may please be considered. 1. 3. Accordingly, there is no basis for addition made by the Id. AO in the draft assessment order, and such addition is factually and legally untenable. 1. 4. Further, there is no evidence to substantiate that, during the year under consideration

Ramesh Chintagumpala, Usa vs. ITO., Ward International Taxation, Nellore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 337/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik

Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 69

issued to the assessee on 15.04.2022. Since there was no compliance to the statutory notices, the Ld. AO framed a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) of the Act on 15.03.2024, proposing additions of (1) Rs.52,39,633/- under Section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment ... Rs.5,17,174/- as interest income. 4. | Aggrieved with the draft assessment order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed objections before the Ld. DRP, which were dismissed. On the basis of the directions of Ld. DRP dated 23.12.2024, the Ld. AO passed a final assessment order dated 31.01.2025 making

Ivy Software Development Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the ground no

ITA 73/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

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

provision of Software Development Service (“SDS”) segment and interest on trade IT(TP)A No.73/Hyd/2022 5 receivables. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed the draft assessment order on 30.03.2021. 4. Aggrieved with the draft assessment order passed by the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred objection before the Ld. DRP. In pursuance

ACIT 531, Mumbai vs. Teleperformance Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 1484/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 263

case of post-merger Serco BPO Pvt. Ltd. [now TGBPL as successor of TGSPL holding PAN - AABCC6211B (erstwhile PAN-AABCV2572L)]: • Draft assessment order dated 23 March 2016: • Passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the IT Act. • By DCIT Circle-4, Gurgaon [R.P. Jolly]. • The opening para of the draft ... observes that original and revised ITRs were filed respectively on 30 November 2012 and 31 March 2014. • As may be noted from the draft assessment order (page 81 of the compilation), disallowance was made only in respect of depreciation of Rs.72,72,978 on the goodwill arising on the HYIT

Teleperformance Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional-Joint-Deputy-Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 1452/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 263

Teleperformance Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional-Joint-Deputy-Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Ncome Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 1451/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 263

Teleperformance Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 977/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 263

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

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

ITA 2458/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Amol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

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

response, the assessee placed reliance upon the Business Transfer Agreements, Valuation Report, and some judicial rulings. The Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide draft assessment order dated 24/03/2014 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee on the following basis ... satisfy the definition of an asset to be recognised as an intangible asset as per Accounting Standard- 26. 8. Accordingly, the AO, vide draft assessment order, disallowed the claim of depreciation made by the assessee in respect of manufacturing contracts and supply/maintenance contracts and added the same to the total

Shri Sudhir Adhana, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

through the seized material and assessment records including the replies filed by the assessee with reference to the additions/ disallowance proposed in the drafts assessment order and only observed that the AO had made proper enquires and considered all the material and provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee ... Addl. CIT had occasion to go through the assessment records and seized material pertaining to the issues on which additions were proposed in draft assessment order. Ld. AR also referred certain lapses and omissions that could have been removed/ answered, had the ld. Addl. CIT referred to or gone through