“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

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

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

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

Fixed & Mobile Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 767/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Fixed & Mobile Pte Ltd., Vs Acit, 1 Raffles Place, International Taxation, #28-01 One Raffles Place, Tower-2, Circle 1(3)(1), Singapore, Singapore 9999. New Delhi. Pan: Aabcf4910G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Alok Vasant, Fca & Ms Poonam Ahuja, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Alok Vasant, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Date of Hearing : 25.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: These appeals are preferred by the Assessee against the final assessment orders dated 21.01.2023 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’), by the ACIT, Circle ... Assessee and only a discount on mobile airtime purchased for on-selling, had been received. 2.4 The AO accordingly passed the final assessment order on January 21, 2023 in pursuance of the DRP Directions and confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,46,00,560 as fees for technical services. Accordingly

Capitalg International Llc (Formerly Known As Gc Aisa L.L.C.), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1632/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Section 143(3)

Hearing 08/04/2024 Date of Pronouncement 08/07/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against final assessment order dated 14/03/2023 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) in pursuance of direction given by the DRP vide order dated 27/02/2023 for the A.Y.2017-18

Tek Systems Global Services Private Limited, Hyderbad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderbad

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

ITA 487/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.487/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Tek Systems Global Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Services (P) Ltd, Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcf1518Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms. K. Amulya, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 05/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Ms. K. Amulya, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 270A

contravention of the CBDT Circular No.19/2019 dated August 14, 2019. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order datd 29 July 2022 under Section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) and section 144B of the Act passed by the Assessing Officer ... pursuant to the invalid directions passed by the ld.DRP under section 144C(5) of the Act, is illegal, thus, making the final assessment order bad in law, null and void and thus, liable to be quashed.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee TES Systems Global

Raghav Sadanand Prabhu, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1806/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am Raghav Sadanand Prabhu Income Tax Ward 3(3)(1) Flat No. 2, Pawan Building, Air India Building, Room No. 1631, Vs. 16Th Floor, Nariman Point, Sitladevi Temple Road, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016 Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No. Agvpp 7832 L (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya : Shri Anil Sant Respondent By Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 : 05.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya

Section 142(1)Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

Date of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This is an appeal filed by the assessee, challenging the final assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pursuant to the direction ... draft assessment order for the reason that the assessee has failed to comply with the DRP proceedings. The ld. A.O. then passed the final assessment order dated 05.03.2024 u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on the best judgment assessment determining the total income at Rs.3

Yogesh Patel, Usa vs. DCIT Circle Int Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with consequences to follow as directed above

ITA 2065/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21 Yogesh Patel, Vs Dcit, 37319, Fowler Street New Ark Circle Int. Taxation 2(2)(2), California, New Delhi. Usa 94560. Pan: Arppp4747H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23.06.2023 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Dcit, Circle International Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao), For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Applicant Is Non-Resident Indian Settled In Usa & Is Us Tax Resident. During The Previous Year Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Reference, The Applicant Sold Ancestral Land Bearing S No14 Hissa, No 7 Pt, Village Goregaon, Tal Borivli, Mumbai Suburban Dist On December 11, 2019 & Disclosed Long Term Capital Gains Computed As Under:- Amt In Rs Sale Consideration - 18,56,87,500 Less: Deduction U/S 48 - 13,56,87,500 Net Sale Consideration (I) 5,00,00,000 Acquisition Cost Fair Market Value On 01-04-2001 Rs 10,400/- X 3647.80 Sq M 3,79,37,120 Less: 60% Reduction In Fmv Due To Encroachment 2,27,62,272 1,51,74,848 Indexed Cost 1,51,74,848 X [289/100] 4,38,55,311 Cost Of Acquisition (Ii) 4,38,55,311 Long Term Capital Gains: (I) - (Ii) 61,44,689

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 48

Date of Hearing : 23.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 05.07.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the final assessment order dated 23.06.2023 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’), by the DCIT, Circle International

Je Energy Ventures Private Limited, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 513/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 92B

Hearing 11/06/2024 Date of Pronouncement 05/07/2024 ORDER PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: 1. . This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the final assessment order dated 27/01/2022 passed U/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C (13) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) subsequent to the direction

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Suisse (Singapore) Limited, Singapore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1711/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: Shri Harsh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 74

Singapore Tax Treaty. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and pursuant to the draft assessment order, the ld. A.O. passed the final assessment order dated 18.02.2020 r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act, determining the total income at Rs.94,93,38,360/- 5. The ld. PCIT

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Suisse (Singapore) Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1698/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: Shri Harsh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 74

Sitapuram Power Limited-Erstwhile Amalgamating Company (Now Amalgamated Company-Zuari Cement Limited), Kadapa vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleआआआआ आआआआ आआ./ I.T.A. (Tp) No.79/Hyd/2022 (आआआआआआआआ आआआआ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Erstwhile Amalgamating Company Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of – Sitapuram Power Limited Income Tax, Pan:Aajcs2098E Circle-1, (Now Amalgamated Company – Nellore. Zuari Cement Limited), Kadapa. Pan:Aajcs2098E (आआआआआआआआआ/ Appellant) (आआआआआआआआआआ/ Respondent) आआआआआआआआआ आआ आआ आआ/ Appellant : Adv. Shri Deepak Chopra & Nitin Narang By आआआआआआआआआआआ आआ आआ आआ / : Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit-Dr Respondent By आआआआआआ आआ आआआआआ / Date Of : 15/05/2024 Hearing आआआआआ आआ आआआआआ/Date Of : 02/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Adv. Shri Deepak Chopra &

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 80ISection 92Section 92(3)Section 92BSection 92D

MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, AM: This appeal filed by Erstwhile Amalgamating Company – Sitapuram Power Limited (Now Amalgamated Company – Zuari Cement Limited), (“the assessee”) against the final assessment order of the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) dated 25/01/2022 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) r.w.s 144B of the Income ... further submitted that the Ld. AO, in complete defiance of the directions issued by the Ld. DRP, passed the final assessment order U/s. 144C(13) of the Act in the name of M/s. Sitapuram Power Limited (Non-existent company). The submissions of the Ld. AR are that:- (i) the draft

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Gupshup Technology India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2327/MUM/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Kumar Agrawal, Sr

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 153BSection 92C

longer an eligible assessee and therefore, there was no requirement for passing draft assessment order. The ld AR argued that accordingly the final assessment order should have been passed on or before 31/03/2015 whereas here in this case final assessment order has been passed on 30/04/2015 and therefore, not only ... whole transfer pricing adjustment but also disallowance u/s. 14A made on corporate tax deserves to be quashed as the final assessment order itself is barred by limitation. In support of the said contention, the ld AR submitted the following table with the relevant dates – 4 ITA No. 2327/Mum/2024- Gupshup Technology

Aapc Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT Circle 1(1)(1) Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 3342/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. S.K Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, CIT(DR)

Section 234ASection 270A

making the above addition, the AO followed the findings given in the case of the assessee for AY 2015-16 in the final assessment order dated 24.01.2023 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. The DRP also followed its directions dated 22.12.2022 for AY 2015-16 for giving ... surcharge and education cess) without taking into consideration, the applicable tax rates as per India Singapore DTAA in the computation sheet accompanying the final assessment order u/s 143(3). The AO is directed to verify the above grievance of the assessee and apply the correct tax rate in accordance with

Aapc Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 1868/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. S.K Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, CIT(DR)

Section 234ASection 270A

Primera Medical Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 381/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri PVSS Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Smt. L. Sunitha Rao, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 19/06/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement on: 28/06/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the final assessment order dated 18/07/2022 passed consequent to the directions of Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru (“DRP”), in the case of Primera Medical Technologies Private Limited ... value, carrying huge R&D facilities, functional dissimilarity etc. Learned DRP declined to delete these entities by rejecting the contentions of the assessee. Final assessment order was passed on 18/07/2022, carrying out the directions of the learned DRP. Hence, this appeal. We shall now proceed to deal with the excludability

Macromill Research India LLP, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 308/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 28/05/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement on: 28/06/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the final assessment order dated 30/01/2017 passed consequent to the directions of Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru (“DRP”), for the assessment year 2012-13, under section

Asha Rani Pandya, Indore vs. CPC Bangalore, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 176/IND/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniasha Rani Pandya Dcit/Acit-1(1) 389 1Ad- Scheme No.74C Indore Vijay Nagar, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aqqpp7081A Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain & Shri Prakash Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28 .06.2024

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90Section 91

present case. In the present case, the returns were filed without FTC, however the same was filed before passing of the final assessment order. The filing of FTC in terms of the Rule 128 is only directory in nature. The rule is only for the implementation of the provisions ... petitioner on 02.02.2021. The respondent is directed to give due credit to the Kenya income of the petitioner and pass the final assessment order. Further, it is made clear that the impugned order is set aside only to the extent of disallowing of FTC claim made by the petitioner

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Tps, Mangaluru vs. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed and assessee appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 714/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20

For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

objections to the proposed addition in the draft assessment order on or before 26.09.2021 which was only two days before passing of the final assessment order dated 28.09.2021. 4.7 The assessee submitted that the Ld.AO passed the final assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the act by making ... natural justice, as assessee was not provided with sufficient opportunity on the issues that was raised four days before the passing of the final assessment order. The assessee submitted that, in respect of disallowance made u/s. 43B, disallowance of the exceptional claim disallowing the deduction of contribution through MRPL defined

Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited, Mangalore vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed and assessee appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 152/PAN/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20

For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

DCIT-14.1.1, Mumbai vs. Huhtamaki India Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2396/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Benerjee, Hon'Ble

Section 153Section 153(4)Section 153BSection 9Section 92C

ignoring the fact that as per the provision of section 153(4) & 144C of the Act the limitation to pass draft assessment order & final assessment order respectively is extended automatically? 8) The Appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that ... order of the Transfer Pricing Officer is barred by limitation as it is not passed within 60 days from the date of the final assessment order which is 26.02.2020. Whereas the case of the revenue is that as per Section 9 of Page No. 3 ITA NO. 2396/MUM/2024

Ahlers India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 524/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 524/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ahlers India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner No.39, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax,, The Trapezium, Corporate Circle 1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029. Pan: Aaeca 5688H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059291012 (1) Dated 02.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Circle 1(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 16.02.2016. The Impugned Giving Effect To The Order Of The Tribunal Was Framed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai Vide Order Dated 22.08.2017. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Nfac Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Disallowing Expenses Paid To Various Non-Resident Parties For Non-Deduction Of Tds By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40(A)(I) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,26,73,426/-. This Is The Only Limited Issue On Merits But Assessee Has Raised Various Other Issues Of Proper Opportunity Etc., Which Will Be Dealt With Later.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40

assessee challenged the draft assessment order before DRP and DRP vide directions dated 29.12.2015 directed the AO and in consequent to the same, final assessment order was passed by the AO u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated.16.02.2016. This final assessment order was challenged before the Tribunal and Tribunal

Faisul Ramon Nagel, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, International Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.1248/Mum/2024 is allowedfor statistical purpose

ITA 1248/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154oSection 244ASection 250Section 90

present case. In the present case, the returns were filed without FTC, however the same was filed before passing of the final assessment order. The filing of FTC in terms of Rule 128 is only directory in nature. The rule is only for the implementation of the provisions ... petitioner on 02.02.2021. The respondent is directed to give due credit to the Kenya income of the petitioner and pass the final assessment order. Further, it is made clear that the impugned order is set aside only to the extent of disallowing of FTC claim made by the petitioner