“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

Jiangdong Fittings Equipments Co. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle Int Tax 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed

ITA 349/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediajiangdong Fittings Vs. Acit Equipments Co. Ltd. Circle Int. Tax – 2(1)(2) C/O. Unit No.309 B, C, D, 3Rd New Delhi Floor, Magnum Tower I, Sector-58, Gurgaon, Haryana-122 011 Pan No. Aadcj 6890 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Kamal Sawhney, Shri Arun Bhadoriya & Shri Puru Medheria, Advs. Revenue By Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.03.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 4

against the return income of Rs.2,18,480/-. 5. Aggrieved, by the aforesaid action of the AO as per the final assessment order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. When the matter was called for hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted at the outset, that

Baker Hughes Energy Technology Uk Limited, United Kingdom vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 3279/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediabaker Hughes Energy Vs. Acit Technology Uk Limited Circle – 1(1)(2), Stoneywood Park North, International Taxation, Dyce, Aberdeen-Ab21 7Ea, New Delhi United Kingdom – 1111 Pan No. Aahcg 6037 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sachit Jolly & Shri Rishabh Malhotra, Adv. Revenue By Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.03.2024

Section 133(6)Section 44B

hearing: 28.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 05.03.2024 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT : Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the final assessment order dated 31.10.2023 passed in A.Y. 2021-22 in pursuance to the direction of learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, New Delhi. 2. Though, multiple grounds have ... Basin. The scope of work as per the MOU with ONGC and particularly Annexure – 1 & 2 of MOU reproduced in paragraph – 6 of final assessment order clearly indicates that the only work assigned to the assessee under the contract is manufacturing and supply of Subsea Production System (SPS) components including

Amadeus It Group Sa, Spain vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3175/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B.Vasanta, CIT-DR

case and in law, the assessing officer erred in following the directions issued by the DRP vide order dated 23.10.2023 and passed final assessment order without appreciating that an invalid DIN was quoted in the said DRP order. Re: Permanent Establishment 5. That the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’)/ assessing officer

Jubilant Pharmova Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. ACIT-1, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is partly allowed

ITA 526/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. K. M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 144B

interest on such receivables. 8. In line with the ld. DRP Directions and the Appeal Effect Order, the Assessing Officer thereafter passed the final assessment order, incorporating the revised TP adjustment and made addition to the Assessee's income of Rs.5,36,99,972/- on account of interest receivable ... Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal w.r.t. the solitary issue of Interest on Outstanding Receivables. 10. Before us, it was submitted that the Revenue has incorrectly re-characterized the outstanding receivables as an unsecured loan advanced

Superb Mind Holding Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Int Tax 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1568/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1568/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 112Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

avoid taxes in India. It is submitted that the aforesaid findings so recorded by learned AO at page 39 to 40 of its final assessment order, is misconceived in law, as admittedly, the assessee is a resident of Mauritius and is holding valid TRC, as such, is entitled to apply

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur vs. Mukesh Kumar Soni, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 656/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani (FCA)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148A

case other than that referred to in clause (xxi), the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall convey to the assessment unit to pass the final assessment order in accordance with such draft order, which shall thereafter pass the final assessment order and initiate penalty proceedings, if any, and send ... National Faceless Assessment Centre; (xxiii) upon receiving the final assessment order as per clause (xxii), the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall serve a copy of such order and notice for initiating penalty proceedings, if any, on the assessee, along with the 28 ITA No. 656/JP/2023 & CO No. 06/JP/2023

Somenath Duttagupta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 627/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.627/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Somnath Duttagupta……..………….…................…...……………....Appellant A 168, Lake Gardens, Shivam Building Flat A2, Kolkata – 700045. [Pan: Afqpd5412G] Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata…...…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Balaji V, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 01, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.04.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Lower Authorities In Making/Confirming The Addition Of Salary Income Of Rs.47,26,133/- Received By The Assessee In India For The Services Rendered In Us. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Filed His Revised Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration I.E. A.Y 2019-20 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.191370/-.

Section 250Section 90(4)

demanded by the Assessing Officer was also filed on 02.11.2021, however, the same was not considered by the Assessing Officer while passing the final assessment order and exemption under Article 16 of the Indo-US DTAA was wrongly denied. 4.1 In respect of the above submissions of the assessee

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai vs. Palchin Real Estate Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2553/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivram & Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose t. Kottaram (CIT

Section 14ASection 270A

various additions, was send to the assessee on 24.09.2021, requiring the Assessee why the additions, as proposed, should not be made in the final assessment order. The Assessee has, vide letters dated 24.09.2021 and 25.09.2021 replied to the above show cause notice. In both its replies the assessee has relied

Appdynamics International Limited, Noida vs. ACIT Intl Taxation Circle 1(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2413/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Date of pronouncement: 29 02 2024 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA-A.M. : The captioned appeal arises from the final assessment order dated 29.06.2023 passed under Section 143(3) r.w. Section 144C(13) of the Act order dated 29.06.2023 for the Assessment Year ... applicability of the judgment relied upon by the assessee after verification of facts. 7. On receipt of DRP directions, the AO passed impugned final assessment order but continued to deny the relief as claimed towards non taxability of receipts on sale of software as Royalty Income. While denying the relief

Myneni Suresh, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward(International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 316/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.316/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2018-19) Myneni Suresh, Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam. (International Taxation), Pan: Eklpm 9295 J Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 35ASection 4

28/02/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, Judicial Member : This appeal filed by the assessee is against the final assessment order of the Ld. AO, Ward (International Taxation), Vizag in DIN & Order No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2023- 24/1058483184(1), dated 5/12/2023 for the AY 2018-19. 2 2. Brief ... assessee vide their directions dated 30/11/2023 passed in F.No. 41/DRP- 1/BNG/2023-24 for the AY 2018-19. Thereafter, the Ld.AO passed the final assessment order on 5/12/2023 giving effect to the directions of the Ld. DRP and assessed the total income at Rs. 43,70,373/-. Against the final assessment order

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Ssnr Projects Pvt Ltd, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 161/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.161/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2019-20) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Ssnr Projects Private Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aarcs 2464 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 29/Viz/2023 (In आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.161/Viz/2022) ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2019-20) M/S. Ssnr Projects Private Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aarcs 2464 C (Cross Objector / Respondent In (Appellant In Appeal) Appeal) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Samuel Nagadesi ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 05/02/2024 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 28/02/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri Samuel NagadesiFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

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

besquarely applicable to the present case. In the present case, thereturns were filed without FTC, however the same was filed beforepassing of the final assessment order. The filing of FTC in terms ofthe Rule 128 is only directory in nature. The rule is only for theimplementation of the provisions ... filed by the petitioner on 02.02.2021.The respondent is directed to give due credit to the Kenya incomeof the petitioner and pass the final assessment order. Further, it ismade clear that the impugned order is set aside only to the extentof disallowing of FTC claim made by the petitioner and hence

M/S. Skylark Fiscal Sevices Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 241/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R

Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 153B

time limit stipulated under section 144C(13) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in not passing the final assessment order within the time limit specified.” 3. In support of this additional ground, the assessee has filed written submissions, which reads as under:- “Brief Note ... same date), the Appellant had raised an additional ground of appeal, for both the years involved, challenging the validity of the Final Assessment Order(s) dated 06 December 2018 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 144C(13)/147/143(3) of the Act, in view of the fact that the same

M/S. Skylark Fiscal Sevices Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 240/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R

Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 153B

The Boston Consulting Group India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1760/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blethe Boston Consulting Group (India) V. Dcit – 3(3)(2) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 14Th Floor, Nariman Bhavan Mumbai - 400020 227, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aabcb3524G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri J.D. Mistri Department Represented By : Shri Rajesh Pardeshi

Section 144C(5)Section 234DSection 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

Pronouncement : 28.02.2024 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the final Assessment Order and directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel-II, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.DRP”] dated 28.11.2014 for the A.Y.2010-11 passed u/s. 144C(5) of Income ... draft assessment order vide DRP Directions dated 28.11.2014. In pursuance to the Ld. DRP's directions, the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order dated 22.11.2015 making total additions of ₹.6,92,35,403/-. 4. Aggrieved, the Assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds in its appeal: - Page

Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1863/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usmicrosoft Corporation (India) Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-16(1), 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 153BSection 92C

determining the total income at Rs. 17,18,44,75,950/-. 5. Now the issue to be decided is whether the final assessment order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the ld AO is passed within the time limit prescribed u/s 144C(13) of the Act or not. For the sake ... Unit) only on 02.05.2022 by NeAC and as per section 144C(13) of the Act, the ld AO is bound to pass the final assessment order within one month from the end of the month in which the ld DRP‟s direction were received. If reckoned from

Iomedia India Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-12(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 995/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usm/S. Iomedia India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Level-4, Regus Rectangle Circle-12(3), No. 1, D-4, Saket, New Delhi Commercial Complex, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacci5116N

For Appellant: Mr. Pancham Sethi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 92C

raised the following grounds of appeal before us:- “1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order passed after considering directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') proposing an adjustment

Gameloft Software Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Hyderabad

ITA 432/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

Section 144C(10)

assessment year 2013-14 on the ground that by way of such an order, the Tribunal set aside M.A.No. 62/Hyd/2023 the final assessment order and remanded the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer/learned TPO for pass appropriate orders in consonance with the directions of the learned ... Compagnie (supra) and Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Flextronics Technologies (India) Private Limited (supra), we find that the final assessment order Page 3 of 5 M.A.No. 62/Hyd/2023 dated 31/10/2017 is bad under law and the same is liable to be quashed. Appeal of the assessee

First Abu Dhabi Bank Pjsc, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3279/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhfirst Abu Dhabi Bank Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Pjsc, Unit No.1101 & Income-Tax (It), Circle 1201 Platina Building, C- 2(3)(1), Room No. 1614, 59, G Block, Bandra Kurla 16Th Floor, Air India Complex, Bandra East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400051 Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaecn2845F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Madhur Agarwal Respondent By : Anil Sant Date Of Hearing 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai-2, Dated 20.07.2023 For A.Y. 2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: 1. Ground No. 1: The Learned Ao Has, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Erred In Initiating & Completing Assessment Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Without Issuing A Valid Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Ie, The Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Dated 29 June 2021 For Initiating Assessment Was Issued By National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nafac) Instead Of Being Issued By The Learned Ao (I.E Jurisdictional Assessing Officer) 2. Ground No. 2:

For Appellant: Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Anil Sant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 155(18)Section 270ASection 80G

First Abu Dhabi Bank Vs. DCIT(IT) Circle 2(3)(1) The learned AO has erred in law by not passing the final assessment order within the time limit prescribed under section 153 of the Act which is the outer time limit for passing the final assessment order and hence ... final assessment order dated 20 July 2023 which is passed after 30 September 2022 (being the time limit as per the provisions of Section 153 of the Act) is time barred and liable to be quashed 3. Ground No. 3: The learned AO has erred in disallowing 'Nostro Account charges

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Thane West vs. Konark Infrastructure (Water Supply-Umc)(Jv), Ulhasnagar

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 3061/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanant Das, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 245C(1)Section 245D(4)

that the Settlement Commission had finally settled the taxable income for AY 2013-14 qua such contract undertaken for UMC and that the final assessment order pursuant thereto had been passed by the Assessing Officer. According to him therefore, no further income in relation to the same contract could

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Thane West vs. Konark Infrastructure (Water Supply-Umc)(Jv), Ulhasnagar

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed, for AYs

ITA 3060/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3021, 3022, 3023 & 3024/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18) Konark Infrastructure बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle – 4 (Water Supply-Umc) (J/V) 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Vs. 1St Floor, Sapna Talkies, 16Z, Waghle Estate, Konark Plaza, Near Sapna Thane (W) Garden, Ulhasnagar 42100. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaak9702G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3058, 3061, 3060 & 3059/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18) Dcit, Central Circle – 4 बिधम/ Konark Infrastructure 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, (Water Supply-Umc) Vs. 16Z, Waghle Estate, Thane (J/V) (W) 1St Floor, Sapna Talkies, Konark Plaza, Near Sapna Garden, Ulhasnagar 42100. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaak9702G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Shri Biswanant Das, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06 & 14/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench All These Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune, All Dated 30-06- 2023 For Ays 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & Ay 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals Have Been Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Raised Similar Arguments On These A.Ys. 2013-14 To 2015-16 Konark Infrastructure., Issues. Accordingly, We Dispose Off All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanant Das, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 245C(1)Section 245D(4)