← 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

Capgemini Technology Services India Limited ( Successor of Aricent Technologies Holdings Limited), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 2804/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2804/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Capgemini Technology V The Assistant Services India Limited[As S Commissioner Of Income Successor In Interest Of Tax-1(1)(1), Pune. Erstwhile Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Limited-Since Amalgamated], Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, District- Pune – 411057. Maharashtra. Pan: Aacck8280B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement /06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2024 For The A.Y.2021-22, Emanating From The

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234ASection 270ASection 92C

before the NEAC, Delhi i.e. the Assessing Officer intimating the fact of conversion of AIPL into LLP. However, the Ld. Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order in the name of AIPL, which is a non-existent entity. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on several judicial in support ... contention that once the order passed by TPO and draft assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer have been passed in the name of a non- existent entity, then the subsequent orders passed by DRP and final assessment order are also bad in law. Accordingly, the issue

Hapag Liyod Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

ITA 1738/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanhapag-Llyod Aktiengesellschaft Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Hapag-Lloyd India Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax International Tax 501 Satellite Gazebo, B Wing, 5Th Circle-2(2)(2) Floor, Guru Hargovindji Marg, Room No.1606, 16Th Floor, Air Andheri East, Mumbai-400993 India Building, Nariman Point, Pan – Aaach0979G Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

said order has been confirmed by the Hon‟ble High Court vide order dated 28th September 2016. 3. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide draft assessment order dated 20/03/2024 passed under section 144C(1) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the decision

Sanand Sankardas, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int. Tax Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1102/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 195Section 69

added to the total income of the Assessee u/s 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. The penalty proceedings were also initiated. Accordingly, draft assessment order was passed u/s 144C(1) of the Act and was forwarded to the Assessee for exercising the option as provided in section u/s 144C ... ground nos.1 & 2 are questioning the exercise of the jurisdiction by the AO who has passed the impugned order as well as the draft assessment order. Therefore, both the grounds will be considered simultaneously. Ground No.3 is with respect to the assessment order being time barred by limitation and that

Danish Sheikh, Usa vs. Income Tax Officer Intl Tax Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1034/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1034/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Danish Sheikh V/S. Ito International Tax, 18, Old Planters Road, बिाम Ward 4(2)(1) Beverly, Usa-999999 Kautilya Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Fjxps3005Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Pradip Kapasi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 43CSection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(vil)

show cause notices issued, the AO proposed an addition of Rs. 32,96,343/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) vide a draft assessment order, against which the assessee filed objections before the P a g e | 7 A.Y. 2016-17 Danish Sheikh Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). After considering the response

Shahi Exports Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 8, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5143/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Shahi Exports Pvt.Ltd., Vs Acit, F-88, Okhla Industrial Area, Central Circle-8, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020. Delhi Pan-Aajcs1175L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shivam Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri S.K.Jhadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 01.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2025 Order

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 80ISection 92C

correct and accordingly, had made the adjustment on this account. The AO based on the order of the TPO, passed the draft assessment order dated 29.12.2023 u/s 144C(1) of the Act wherein the adjustment as proposed by the TPO of reduction in deduction claimed section 80IA ... made and accordingly, total income of the assessee was proposed at INR 3,18,97,42,955/-. Against draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before Ld.DRP who vide order dated 19.09.2024 followed its own direction given in assessee’s own case for AY 2020-21 and accordingly, dismissed

Dev Priya Products Private Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Meerut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4433/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2020-21] Dev Priya Products Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit/Acit, 4, Shankar Vihar, 1St Floor, Central Circle, Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092. Meerut Pan-Aaacd4276C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Ayush Garg, Ca Respondent By Shri S.K.Jhadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2025 Order

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 80I

which the deduction u/s 80IA was reduced to this extent. The AO based on the proposal made by the TPO has passed the draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) of the Act dated 26.09.2023 wherein the total income of the assessee as declared

Shri Jaiteshwar Seva Sansthan, Jodhpur vs. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 344/JODH/2025[NA]Status: FixedITAT Jodhpur26 Jun 2025

Bench: Us By Challenging The Revisional Order.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(4)Section 2(5)Section 263

reply in the system. The copy e-proceeding response related notice date 16/01/2023 is annexed in APB pages 138-139. Finally, the draft assessment order was issued and the Ld.AO has accepted the assessee’s reply which was filed during the assessment proceedings. The showcause notice was issued

Shree Ram Colloids Private Limited, Jodhpur vs. Principal CIT(1), Jodhpur

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

ITA 344/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeshree Ram Colloids Private Vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax (1), Jodhpur C-79, Mia, Phase-Ii, Jodhpur- 342 005 Pan: Aakcs5803L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

reply in the system. The copy e-proceeding response related notice date 16/01/2023 is annexed in APB pages 138-139. Finally, the draft assessment order was issued and the Ld.AO has accepted the assessee’s reply which was filed during the assessment proceedings. The showcause notice was issued

Olam Food Ingredients India Private Limited, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Kollam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 86/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Uday Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sri Sundrasan S, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

Associated Enterprises (in short “AE”) details of which were extracted by the Assessing Officer (in short “AO”) at page 2 of the Draft Assessment order. On noticing the above international transactions, the AO referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (in short “TPO”) for the purpose of benchmarking ... amount of Rs. 4,15,68,051/- was suggested as TP adjustment. 5. On receipt of the TP adjustment, the AO passed the Draft Assessment Order U/s. 144C of the Act proposing the TP adjustment of Rs. 4,35,51,370/-. On receipt of the Draft Assessment Order, the appellant

Olam Food Ingredients India Private Limited, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Kollam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 85/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Uday Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sri Sundrasan S, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

Associated Enterprises (in short “AE”) details of which were extracted by the Assessing Officer (in short “AO”) at page 2 of the Draft Assessment order. On noticing the above international transactions, the AO referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (in short “TPO”) for the purpose of benchmarking ... amount of Rs. 4,15,68,051/- was suggested as TP adjustment. 5. On receipt of the TP adjustment, the AO passed the Draft Assessment Order U/s. 144C of the Act proposing the TP adjustment of Rs. 4,35,51,370/-. On receipt of the Draft Assessment Order, the appellant

Neeru Arora, Chandigarh vs. Circle-1, International Taxation, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 60/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144C(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)Section 53A

Transfer of Property Act and section 2(47)(v) of the Act. 6. The AO, however, rejected the explanation and finalised the draft assessment order dated 03.03.2023 by adopting the stamp duty value of Rs.1.51 crore as deemed consideration under section 50C. He further denied the benefit of the indexed

DCIT, CC-1(4), Kolkata vs. Kkalpana Industries India Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 452/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.452/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 2B, Pretoria Street, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 13.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070338584(1), For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld.Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Ms. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. A Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Revenue Has Been Filed Belatedly By 28 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Thus, The Delay Of 28 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate and Ms. Puja Somani, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 45

Clause xiv, the assessment unit shall, after taking into account all the relevant material available on the record make in writing, a draft assessment order and then as per Clause xvi, the National e-Assessment Centre shall examine the draft assessment order and finalize the assessment within the period

Amit Kumar Sen, Hooghly vs. ACIT, Circle 23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 388/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.388/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Amit Kumar Sen, Vs Acit, Circle-23(1), Hooghly Sahapur, Tarakeswar, Hooghly (Wb)-712410 Pan No. :Aavfs 6967 R (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra & Shri Trideep Nayak, Ars रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Addl/Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2024 Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1071619653(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra & Shri Trideep Nayak, Ld. Ars Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Was Specifically Asked To Point Out How The Assessee Has Responded To The Chart Issued By The Assessing Officer, Which Is Recorded In Page 3 Of The Assessment Order. Other Than Referring To Various Replies That Have Been Filed By The Assessee, Which Were Uploaded From The Portal, No Specific Reply To The Said Para Was Pointed Out. Admittedly, The Assessee Has Not Been Able To Dislodge The Said Chart.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra and Shri Trideep Nayak, ArsFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Addl/CIT-Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice The Ld. Assessing Officers disallowance of the expense without issuing a draft assessment order or providing a fair and adequate opportunity to explain the necessity and nature of such expenses constitutes a grave violation of the principles of natural

Elsie Hubald, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 2(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, ground nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 955/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: 19.06.2025
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 69

unexplained cash credits in the hands of the assessee. The assessee filed its objections before the DRP against the draft assessment order passed by the AO. The DRP deleted the addition made towards unexplained cash credit and sustained the addition made towards unexplained investment under section

Orient Overseas Container Line Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2129/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23
For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora; Shri Lekh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 244ASection 44B

Assessing Officer proposed addition of 50% of the aforesaid amount. Therefore, the Assessing Officer proposed disallowance of INR.4,49,79,547/- in the Draft Assessment Order, dated 28/03/2024, under Section 143(3) read with Section 144(C)(1) of the Act computed as under: Particulars Amount (INR) GST Amount

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Company, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) - Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1092/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 9(1)(i)

entered into any new agreements with the Indian Cedents.” 4. The AO after considering the submissions of the assessee in the draft assessment order held that the services rendered by RGA services are vital and primary business functions and are not in the nature of auxiliary or preparatory

Fugro Survey (India) Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by

ITA 6042/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Fugro Survey (India) Private Limited, Dcit, Circle -15(1)(1), D-222/30, Furgo House, Ttc Vs Room No. 451, Aayakar Bhawan, Industrial Area, Darave B.O., Nerul, M.K. Road, Navi Mumbai-400706 Mumbai-400020 [Pan No. Aaacf 5343 R] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 254(1)Section 92D

basis of allocation of cost to the assessee. The assessing officer on the basis of order / report of TPO made such adjustment in draft assessment order dated 30.11.2023. Copy of draft assessment order 30.11.2023 was served upon the assessee. The assessee exercised its option in filing objection before DRP. Before

Emerging India Focus Funds, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(2)(2), Delhi

ITA 1963/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

dated 31.05.2023 was issue to the assessee by the AO for the following reasons:- • Large Foreign Remittance made (Business ITR) 3. In the Draft Assessment Order, the Assessing Officer held that out of the total capital gain of Rs.593,48,24,274/-, the capital gains of Rs.385 ... acquired prior to 1 April 2017 shall not be taxable in India. • The learned AO has appreciated this in para 8.4 of the draft assessment order wherein it has been mentioned that Article 13 clearly enunciates that gains arising from alienation of shares acquired on or after 1 April

Brijesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

ITA 4064/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 156Section 69A

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Regarding- Please refer to the subject cited above. Ad send for Approval on 29 In this regard, draft assessment order(s) in the below mentioned ease(s) submitted to this office, vide F. No, ACIT/CC-14/ Brindavan Group of cases/2019- 20/1022 dated 29.12.2019 seeking approval u/s 153D ... AABCV4459N 2012-13 to 2018-19, 153A/143(3) The approval as per provisions of section 3D of the Act. in respect of draft assessment order(s) submitted in the above mentioned case(s), is hereby accorded. (Rajesh Kumar) Addl. Commissiorfer of Income Tax Central Range-4, Delhi 5.1 From

Rajesh Karsanbhai Patel, Maharastra vs. DCIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 674/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153ASection 153D

with his letter, he letter dated 26.12.2018 has sought approval u/s 153D of the Act, with his letter, he merely submitted draft assessment order. Learned Additional Commissione draft assessment order. Learned Additional Commissioner of draft assessment order. Learned Additional Commissione Income Tax, Central Range 5, New Delhi, Income Tax, Central ... case of the assessee. The said order also fails 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, we cannot lose sight of the fact that in the instant case