“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

Triniti Advanced Softwarelabs Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officers, Ward -2(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 397/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

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

Section 143(3)

सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 21/05/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement on: 20/06/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the final assessment order dated 26/03/2021 passed consequent to the directions of Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru (“DRP”), in the case of Triniti Advanced Software Labs Private ... rejected and the adjustment proposed by the learned TPO has to be confirmed. Pursuant there to, the learned Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order on 26/03/2021. 5. It is the argument of the learned AR that as compared to the turnover of the assessee at Rs. 25.40 crores

Bay Capital India Fund Limited, Mauritius vs. Assistance Commissioner of Income Tax, Air India, Nariman Point, Mumbai

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

ITA 4475/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: ShriAnil Sant – Addl.CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

loss and rest amount accepted as exempted income. So, the entire amount of non-grandfathered LTCG & STCG are taxed in India. In the final assessment order, the proposal of the ld. DRP is accepted and levied the tax accordingly. Being aggrieved on final assessment order the assessee filed an appeal ... following the order of Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Ltd.(supra). The orders which are relied on by the ld. DR aredistinguishable. The impugned final assessment order is dismissed. The appeal of the assessee is succeeded. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 4475/Mum/2023 is allowed

Cook India Medical Devices Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corp Circle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 441/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1310 & 1311/Chny/2023 & Ita No.441/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-2017) M/S. Cook India Medical Devices Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Plot No.22, Sp, 3Rd & 4Th Floor, Corporate Circle 1(2) Kochar Jade, Chennai. Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aaccc 7628P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Mukundan, Irs, Jcit.

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Mukundan, IRS, JCIT

dated 26.09.2022 for AY 2012-13 held as under: ‘’1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 arises out of final assessment order passed by learned Assessing Officer (AO) on 29.12.2018 u/s 143(3) rws 92CA pursuant to the directions of Ld. DRP u/s 144C(5) dated

Cook India Medical Devices Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1311/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Mukundan, IRS, JCIT

Cook India Medical Devices Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1310/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Mukundan, IRS, JCIT

Neha Singh, Lucknow vs. ITO-3(2), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 23/LKW/2024[217-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 115BSection 129Section 142Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 69D

dated 12th September, 2019. 14. Because the Draft Assessment order has never been supplied to the appellant by the LAO before passing the final Assessment order dated 01-10-2019. 15. Because the appellant has never been a tax payer in the past, since her annual taxable income has never

M/S Centrient Pharmaceuticals India Private Limited, Nawanshahar vs. Additinal/Joint/Deputy/Asstt. C.It, ITO, Neac, Delhi

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

ITA 102/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 144

following the directions of the DRP, the same have been followed by the AO and forms part of the adjustment as per final assessment order passed by the AO and the assessee in Ground No. 2 to 7 has assailed the said transfer pricing adjustment. 4. From the perusal

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Delhi vs. Adm Agro Industries Kot & Akola Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 839/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri R.K. Kapoor, CA

Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 92C

Kapoor, appearing on behalf of the assessee vehemently supporting the order of CIT(A) submitted that the Assessing Officer (AO) has passed final assessment order dated 28.03.2013, in violation of the provisions of 3 section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred ... provisions of said section, the Assessing Officer is mandatorily required to pass draft assessment order before passing final assessment order u/s. 144C(3) of the Act, where no objections are filed by the assessee. The CIT(A) has allowed assessee’s appeal in a well reasoned order following the decision

Six Continents Hotels, Inc., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 3(1)(2) Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 3339/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144(10)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vii)

Dispute Resolution Panel dated 04.08.2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: Ground No. 1: “Final Assessment order passed by the ld. AO not in conformity with provisions of section 144C of the Act is bad in law. 2 1.1 That ... website of Income-tax Department. 2.3 On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order dated 28 September 2023 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act pursuant to invalid and non-est 3 directions passed

Amplus Power Solutions Private Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT-Circle-1(1), Delhi

In the result, ground no. 1 to 8 of appeal are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1213/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआअसं.1213/िद"ी/2022 (िन.व. 2017-18) Amplus Power Solutions P. Ltd., 6Th Floor, The Palm Square, Golf Course Extension Road, Sector-66, Gurugram 122102, Haryana ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaoca0544J बनाम Vs. The Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer-Circle1(1), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nikhil Tiwari "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 29.3.2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Nine Grounds. The Ground No. 1 To 8 Of Appeal Are Against Addition Made On Interest On Non Convertible Debentures & Non Compliance Of Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) By The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo)/Assessing Officer (Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Mauritius S.N.C ET Compagnie vs. UOI 68 taxmann.com 377 to contend that where the AO/TPO failed to follow directions of the DRP, the final assessment order is liable to be quashed. 3.2 He further pointed that determination of arm’s length interest rate at 17.03% by the TPO as against

Teamex Retail Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 225/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajneesh Mulick, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 250

genuineness of the transactions and issued show cause notice stating disallowance of 50% of Rs. 50,33.810/ only i.e. 25.10.905/ however in final assessment order respected AO has disallowed all expenses amounting to Rs. 50,33,810/ was disallowed. The expenditure was genuine and for the business purpose only ... notice dated 07-12-2018, in which the assessing officer proposed to disallow 50% of amount of Rs.50,33,810/- , whereas in the final assessment order, 100% i.e. entire commission payments was disallowed by the assessing officer, without appreciating the fact that in the multilevel marketing business model followed

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 309/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.309/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Oakton Global Technology Vs. Income Tax Officer Services Centre (India) (P) Ltd, Ward 16(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaaco8824H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bhardwaj, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bhardwaj, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144(5)

hearing: 10/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/ORDER Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in pursuant to DRP-1 Bengaluru direction issued ... towards disallowance of employee contribution to PF u/s 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act, 1961 . Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has passed the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 20.12.2016 and determined the total income at Rs.4,55,78,858/- Page

Ramakrishna Rao, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 541/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 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 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

Clinasia Labs Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward1(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 202/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Appellant: Shri Nemichand Sirvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 21/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 11/06/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: Aggrieved by the final assessment order passed consequent to the directions of Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru (“DRP”), for the assessment year 2016-17, under section 143(3) r.w.s.144C ... objection raised by the assessee and ultimately passed the order. 8. Based on the directions of the DRP, AO has passed the final assessment order and in the final assessment order, the AO has proposed an addition (TP adjustment) of Rs. 2,49,90,091/- to the total income

Caterpillar India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-1, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2749/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2749/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Caterpillar India P. Ltd. Dcit 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit-1 Taramani Road, Taramani, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 113. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcc-4615-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.22/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.2749/Chny/2017) (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit M/S. Caterpillar India P. Ltd. बनाम/ 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai-34. Taramani Road, Taramani, Vs. Chennai-600 113. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcc-4615-K (Cross-Objector) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri S.P.Chidambaram (Advocate)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri A.Sasikumar (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Chidambaram (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar (CIT)- Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1.1 Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 arises out of final assessment order dated 12-09-2017 passed by Ld. Assessing Officer, (AO) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act, pursuant to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ... assessment order was passed on 27.12.2016 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. 1.2 The Revenue has filed cross-objection against the additional grounds

Inmobi Technology Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee for AY

ITA 303/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A Nos. 303 & 839/Bang/2022

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya, Sr. Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Date of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeals filed by the assessee arises out of the final assessment order passed by NFAC u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s 144B on 01.03.2022 for A.Y. 2017-18 and 28.07.2022 for A.Y. 2018-19. Page ... made to the Ld. TPO to rework the ALP adjustments and the same were assessed at Rs.59,38,48,607/-. Factoring this, the final assessment order dated 01.03.2022 was passed for AY 2017-18. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal

Harisons Steel Limited, Wada Thane vs. Dy CIT 12(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3957/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

profit and loss account. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information received from the excise department. However, no final assessment order has been passed by the excise department till passing of the order by the assessing officer. The assessing officer has made the addition only

Harisons Steel Ltd, Wada Thane vs. DCIT 12(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3943/MUM/2023[AY 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

ITO (It) TDS-2, Mumbai vs. Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 225/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri P. C. Chhotaray

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

no.8707/Mum./2011 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present cross appeal has been filed against the impugned final assessment order dated 28/10/2011 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), pursuant to the directions issued ... assessee having pages 1-15. The Addl. CIT, Range-2(3), Mumbai, passed the draft assessment order on 24/12/2010 and impugned final assessment order on 28/10/2011. 5. The learned Sr. Counsel by referring to the provisions of section 143(2) as well as section 143(3) of the Act submitted

DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Siemens Ag, Mumbai

ITA 2179/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 9(1)(vi)

आदेश / ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid cross appeals have been filed by the assessee as well as by the department against final assessment order dated 30/01/2014, passed by Dy. Director Income Tax (IT)-2(1), Mumbai in pursuance of directions given by the DRP vide order dated 16/12/2013 ... barred by limitation under section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Additional ground no. 2 filed on 24 November 2022 3. Final assessment order contrary to directions of DRP is invalid. Additional ground no. 3 filed on 1 7 January 2024 4. The assessee is a non-resident company