← All Phrases

“final assessment order”

Assessment ProceduresSection 144CSection 144C4,041 judgments

The decision most relied on for final assessment order is Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO (106 ITR 1), cited in 486 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on final assessment order

Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO
106 ITR 1 · 1977 · Supreme Court
486
citing judgments

The principle of finality dictates that stale issues should not be reactivated, and lapse of time brings repose to judicial and quasi-judicial controversies. A Commissioner cannot substitute their judgment for the Assessing Officer's unless the assessment order is legally erroneous, not merely less elaborate, thus limiting revisionary powers under Section 263.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) ltd.
445 ITR 537 · 2022 · High Court
269
citing judgments

The time limit for the Assessing Officer to pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) following directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel is determined by the specific provisions of Section 153, particularly Section 153(2A).

CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd.
376 ITR 456 · 2015 · Supreme Court
221
citing judgments

The requirement to file a certificate or form (e.g., Form 10CCB, 10-IC) along with the return of income for claiming a deduction (e.g., under sections 80-IB, 115BAA) is directory regarding its timing. Such a deduction is allowable if the requisite form is filed before the final order of assessment, as procedural requirements should not override substantive benefits.

Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain
259 ITR 449 · 2003 · Supreme Court
147
citing judgments

Section 144C(4) uses a non-obstante clause to expedite the final assessment order, requiring the Assessing Officer to pass it immediately upon acceptance or lack of objection to the TPO's order, irrespective of broader time limits under Section 153.

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.

Travancore Diagnostics P. Ltd. v. ACIT
390 ITR 167 · 2017 · High Court
50
citing judgments

Failure to issue notice under section 143(2) before finalizing a reassessment order under section 147 is a fatal jurisdictional error, and this defect cannot be cured by invoking section 292BB of the Income-tax Act. Consequently, such a reassessment order is not sustainable in law.

Addl. CIT v. Mukur Corporation
111 ITR 312 · 1978 · High Court
49
citing judgments

When setting aside an assessment under Section 263(1) and directing a fresh assessment, the Commissioner need not record final conclusions or express final opinions on controversial points. It also interprets 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' as meaning the assessment order is not in accordance with law, leading to the non-realization of lawful revenue.

Judgments citing final assessment order

India Property (Mauritius) Company II, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 2(1)(1), New Delhi

ITA 1020/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 90(2)

pursuance to the directions of the Hon’ble DRP, the Learned Assessing Officer (‘Ld.AO’), denied the Treaty benefits and passed the final assessment order dated 10/02/2023, assessing the total income at INR 1,52,61,71,940 and raising a tax demand of INR 25,76,86,310 (including interest ... dated 20 January 2023 on the following grounds: 6 1. The Learned AO has erred in law by passing the final assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act on 10 February 2023, which is beyond the time –limit specified under provisions of section

Nikesh Arora, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Gurgon

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1008/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: We Proceed To Deal With The Substantive Issues Arising

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2

hearing 19.04.2024 Date of pronouncement 18.07.2024 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the final assessment order dated 14.03.2022 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), pertaining to assessment ... draft assessment order, the assessee raised objections before learned DRP. However, learned DRP did not interfere. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order. 11. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the Employment Agreements dated 16.07.2014, 17.12.2014 and 20.05.2015 merely record the terms of employment

Azingo Soft Systems (India) Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Secunderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 460/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(8)Section 92C

adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds before the Tribunal: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the final assessment order dated 30 January 2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1 (1), Hyderabad ('AO') u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C ... suggested an adjustment of Rs. 15,82,39,054/-. Finally, considering the recommendations of the Ld. TPO, the Ld. AO passed the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act on 30/01/2015 making the TP adjustment of Rs. 15,82,39,054/- and assessing the total income

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Azingo Soft Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 331/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(8)Section 92C

adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds before the Tribunal: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the final assessment order dated 30 January 2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1 (1), Hyderabad ('AO') u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C ... suggested an adjustment of Rs. 15,82,39,054/-. Finally, considering the recommendations of the Ld. TPO, the Ld. AO passed the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act on 30/01/2015 making the TP adjustment of Rs. 15,82,39,054/- and assessing the total income

Kent Engineering India Private Limted, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

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

ITA 4750/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Kent Engineering India Private Limited 10Th Floor, Lal Bahadur Commissioner Of Income Shastri Marg, Vikharoli, Tax (Appeal), 1(2)(1), Gagorre Nagar, S.O. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Embassy 247, Tower C Mumbai-400 020 Vikhroli, Mumbai-400 083 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacr1966M Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dhiraj Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dhiraj Kumar, DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

Transfer Pricing adjustment was 03. made by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer during the impugned assessment year and addition was made after the final assessment order amounting to ₹2,59,23,978/-. The proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Act was initiated and penalty

Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 7 (1) (1), Mumbai

ITA 1484/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 1484/Mum/2021

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vachaspati Tripathi, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 253(1)Section 92C

learned AO')/ learned Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned TPO) erred and Hon'ble DRP further erred: Validity of final assessment order 1. In directly passing the final assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act, without passing the draft assessment order as applicable in case ... order 2. By passing an order under Section 92CA (3) dated 1 November 2019 which was barred by limitation, thereby rendering the resultant final assessment order null and void as per the provisions under Section 153 of the Act. Transfer pricing grounds - Adjustment under Section 92CA

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada vs. Fysolate Technologies, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 182/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.182/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Fysolate Technologies, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Vijawayada. Pan: Aacff5633L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Mithilesh Sannareddy ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 15/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri Mithilesh SannareddyFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

response, the assessee submitted that it wishes to file an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, the Ld. AO passed the final assessment order U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 11/6/2021 by making an addition of Rs. 62,25,78,803/- towards ... adjustment, determining the total income at Rs. 94,45,53,973/- Aggrieved by the final assessment order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A), considering various submissions made by the assessee, directed

Seg Automotive India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 988/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Raipuria, CA
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

31/12/2020 and dated 13/01/2021 in response to which submissions were made by the assessee. The Ld.AO subsequently issued the final assessment order under section Page 3 of 4 143(3) of the Act, dated 28/09/2021 wherein a demand of Rs.3,55,88,940/- was raised on the assessee

Pralay Pradyotkanti Ghosh, Ahmedabad vs. Income -Tax Officer, Ward-1, International Taxation, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 298/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.298/Ahd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pralay Pradyotkanti Ghosh The Ito बनाम/ 22, Konark Society Ward-1 Nr. Railway Colony International Taxation V/S. Jawahar Chowk, Sabarmati Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 380 019 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abypg 6172 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”], Dated 01/06/2022, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S.144C(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 22/10/2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. Pralay Pradyotkanti Ghosh Vs. Ito (Intl.Taxation) Asst. Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 192Section 2Section 5(2)(b)

appellant neither filed his objection before the undersigned nor filed any objection before the Hon'ble DRP within 30 days. Subsequently, the final assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act was passed on 22.10.2021. which is well within the time limit provided w/s, 144C

ITO, Corporate Ward-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Encore It Solutions Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 630/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 630/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 & C.O No.28/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. No.630/Chny/2023] The Income Tax Officer, Encore It Solutions Pvt. Corporate Ward 2(1), Vs. Ltd., Chennai – 600 034. Htc Towers, No.41 Gst Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaace 8044K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shrig. Suresh, Jcit िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriG. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Rs.2,50,08,077/-. Consequent to draft assessment order, as no objection was filed by the assessee before DRP, final assessment order was passed by the AO u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) of the Act dated 18.12.2019 and TP adjustment was retained at Rs.2,50,08,077/-. Aggrieved, assessee came

Capgemini Technology Services India Limited (Successor to Capgemini India Private Limited, Airoli, Navi Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 55, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2657/MUM/2023[AY 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M P LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(3)Section 92C

Assessing Officer passed the Draft Assessment Order on 31/03/2016, proposing additions/disallowances including the aforesaid transfer pricing adjustment. Sequent thereto, Assessing Officer passed the Final Assessment Order on 19/05/2016 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(3) of the Act which was challenged in appeal before CIT(A). Vide order ... above judgments/decisions, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant submitted that the order, dated 31/01/2016 passed by the TPO as well as the Final Assessment Order, dated 19/05/2016, passed by the Assessing Officer should be quashed as being barred by limitation and therefore, null & void. 6.1. Per Contra Learned Departmental

Stryker India Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi

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

ITA 817/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarstryker India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle 22 (2), C-5, Sda Commercial Complex, Delhi. Delhi – 110 016. (Pan : Aaecs2513F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Zafrul Haque Tanweer, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Order : 11.07.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 28.01.2022 Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Ld. Drp For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Zafrul Haque Tanweer, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 270ASection 271Section 92C

effect to the directions of Hon'ble DRP by not considering "net receivables" for the purposes of computing transfer pricing adjustment in the final assessment order dated January 28, 2022. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty

Nachimuthugownder Balasamy Karthikeyan, Erode vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 428/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.428/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Nachimuthugownder Balasamy Ito बनाम/ Karthikeyan International Taxation Ward, 66, Kovalan 2Nd Street, Coimbatore. Vs. Teachers Colony, Erode-638 011. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aotpk-3606-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate) Erode - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate) Erode - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 arises out of final assessment order of learned Assessing Officer (AO) passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) pursuant to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru-3 (DRP) u/s 144C(5) dated ... justified. 3.6 The Ld. DRP, vide directions dated 15-12-2023, upheld the action of Ld. AO. These directions were carried out in final assessment order dated 06-01-2024. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 4. First, we take up the issue

M/S Regen Renewable Energy Generation Global Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, International Taxation Circle - 2 (1), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 685/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.684/Chny/2022 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.685/Chny/2022 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Regen Renewable Energy Acit बनाम Generation Global Limited International Taxation New No.1, Pulla Avenue, / Vs. Circle-2(1), Chennai. Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcr-0685-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Ca) – Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Mrs. Jyothi Lakshmi Nayak (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Jyothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 115A(1)(b)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 234B

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years (AY) 2014- 15 & 2015-16 arises out of final assessment orders both dated 07-07- 2022 passed by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 147 r.w.s.144, pursuant to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru ... which was subjected to assessee’s objections before Ld. DRP. Pursuant to the directions of Ld. DRP, final assessment order was passed against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. The assessee has filed revised / additional grounds of appeal and finally, filed consolidated grounds

M/S Regen Renewable Energy Generation Global Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, International Taxation Circle - 2 (1), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 684/CHNY/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.684/Chny/2022 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.685/Chny/2022 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Regen Renewable Energy Acit बनाम Generation Global Limited International Taxation New No.1, Pulla Avenue, / Vs. Circle-2(1), Chennai. Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcr-0685-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Ca) – Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Mrs. Jyothi Lakshmi Nayak (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Jyothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 115A(1)(b)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 234B

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years (AY) 2014- 15 & 2015-16 arises out of final assessment orders both dated 07-07- 2022 passed by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 147 r.w.s.144, pursuant to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru ... which was subjected to assessee’s objections before Ld. DRP. Pursuant to the directions of Ld. DRP, final assessment order was passed against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. The assessee has filed revised / additional grounds of appeal and finally, filed consolidated grounds

M/S. Steer America Inc., United States vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation Circle -1(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 833/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Vasanth Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Anjala Sahu, D.R
Section 144CSection 147Section 148

contemplated by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (2003) 259 1TR 19. The final assessment order passed in violation of the decision of the Supreme Court is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 5. i) The Lower authorities ... Fees For Technical Services". 6.2 The ld. DRP confirmed the draft orders for these assessment years and thereafter the ld. AO passed the final assessment order. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 6.3 The ld. A.R. submitted that the Assessee procures local sales orders for STEER products

M/S. Steer America Inc., United States vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation Circle -1(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 832/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Vasanth Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Anjala Sahu, D.R
Section 144CSection 147Section 148

contemplated by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (2003) 259 1TR 19. The final assessment order passed in violation of the decision of the Supreme Court is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 5. i) The Lower authorities ... Fees For Technical Services". 6.2 The ld. DRP confirmed the draft orders for these assessment years and thereafter the ld. AO passed the final assessment order. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 6.3 The ld. A.R. submitted that the Assessee procures local sales orders for STEER products

Shri Anurag Lakshman Pande, Rajouri Garden vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Int. Tax .2(2) (2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2046/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2020-21

Date of hearing 03.07.2024 Date of pronouncement 10.07.2024 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT This is an appeal by the assessee against the final assessment order dated 27.06.2023 passed in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. In ground ... Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order after taking into account the submissions made by the assessee before him. However, in the final assessment order, the Assessing Officer 3 | P a g e AY: 2020-21 . again made the addition of Rs. 33,73,120/-, being long term capital gain

Marsh India Insurance Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-7(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5766/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

Section 234B

paid and consequential wrong levy of interest u/s.234B. Subsequently, the assessee filed a letter dated 28/09/2023 with an additional ground that the final assessment order dated 31/07/2019 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO for short)is barred by limitation by relying on the decision of CIT vs. Roca Bathroom Products

Marsh India Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-7(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed as the grounds are not pressed and withdrawn

ITA 6670/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Registry & The Same Is Reproduced Below:-

Section 234B

India Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Act. The company also raised an additional ground by way of letter dated 28/09/2023 and submitted that the final assessment order dated 28/09/2018 is barred by limitation by relying on the decision of CIT vs. Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. 445 ITR 537. 2. During