← 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

Jabil Circuit India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -3, Mumbai

ITA 349/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.349/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jabil Circuit India Pvt. Ltd. Arena House, 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 103 Road No. 12, Opp Tulip Telecom Marol Midc, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. बनाम / Vs. Pcit-03, Mumbai Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7114K (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Revenue By: Shri Nitesh Joshi Shri Ankush Kapoor (Cit Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/02/2024 Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: आदेश / Order This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-03, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 18.01.2021 For

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Nitesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 263Section 263(1)

order u/s 143(3) read with section 144C(1) of the Act, and after Ld. DRP direction on 21.09.2017, the AO passed the final assessment order on 30.11.2017, which has been interfered by the Ld. PCIT invoking his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, which impugned action according

Sudarshan Arora, Birmingham vs. DCIT International Taxation, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1516/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

Hearing 14/11/2023 Date of Pronouncement 08/02/2024 ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH AM: The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the final assessment order dated 29/04/2022 passed U/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C (13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) subsequent to the direction ... valuation report filed by the assessee in support of the cost of construction claimed by the assessee. The ld. AO in the final assessment order disallowed the claim of cost of construction on the ground that the valuation report submitted by the assessee consisted of various discrepancies and shortcomings

Castrol India Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

ITA 2433/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blecastrol India Limited V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Technopolis Knowledge Park Delhi Mahakali Caves Road Chakala, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400093 Pan: Aaacc4481E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Chandni Shah, Shri Hardik Nirmal & Ms. Riddhi Maru Department Represented By : Ms. A. Alankrutha

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 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 of Learned Castrol India Limited Commissioner of Income Tax (DRP-1), Mumbai-1 [hereinafter in short “Ld.DRP”] dated ... assessee has raised following additional grounds: - “Ground No. 5: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order dated 25.07.2022 (digitally signed on 26.07.2022) passed by the Ld. AO under section 143(3) read with section 144C

Air Liquide Global Ec Germany Gmbh, Germany vs. ACIT, Circle International Tax 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the stay application is

ITA 2401/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

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

Section 144C(13)Section 44B

hearing 14.11.2023 Date of pronouncement 07.02.2024 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the final assessment order dated 29.06.2023 passed under section ITA No.2401/Del/2023 & S.A. No.329/Del/2023 AY: 2020-21 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income ... doing so, learned DRP also held that the assessee had a PE in India. In terms with the directions of learned DRP, the final assessment order was passed. 5. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that in course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has furnished documentary evidences

Vineet Bahety, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-44(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1267/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

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

Vineet Bahety, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-44(2), Kolkata.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1266/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

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

Corning Sas India Branch Office, Haryana vs. DCIT/ACIT-Int-Tax, Haryana

The appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 528/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat Kul Bharat Kul Bharatkul Bharat Shri Shri Shri

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshresth, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 270

passed an order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 instead of directly issuing a final assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act and thus, the final assessment order issued should be quashed and treated as non-est given that ... time period prescribed under section 153 of the Act read with CBDT Notifications for passing the final assessment order has lapsed. Non-Taxability of interest on income tax refund by Non Taxability of interest on income tax refund by Non Non Taxability of interest on income tax refund by Taxability

Bsc C&C Joint Venture, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2284/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 40Section 801A(4)(i)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘FRIDAY-I’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 631/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate with Shri Nikhil Tiwari,AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha, CIT-DR and Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.AR
Section 116Section 143(3)Section 92C

accordance with the decision of Special Bench in the case of Avada Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., 100 ITD 131. In the final assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act for A.Y 2006-07 the interest amount was reduced to Rs.8,58,80,712/-. Subsequently ... violation of the law by the Assessing Officer in issuing the draft assessment order on 28-3-2013 and passing of the final assessment order dated 26-2-2014 by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is well within the limitation provided

Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Gurugram

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1524/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

Date of hearing : 06.11.2023 Date of pronouncement: 05.02.2024 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, VP, Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the final assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 pertaining to assessment year 2018-19, in pursuance to the directions of learned

Yokogawa India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Taxpayers Unit, Bangalore

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

ITA 2088/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14A

Date of Pronouncement : 01.02.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated ... Aggrieved, the assessee filed objections before the DRP and the DRP passed the order on 3.7.2017. Accordingly, the AO passed the final assessment order making TP adjustment of Rs.24,11,65,069 and addition u/s. 14A of Rs.22,91,614 determining assessed income at Rs.78,08,57,463. Aggrieved

M/S Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 575/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 144ASection 32ASection 35Section 37(1)Section 80I

other additions. Since the assessee did not prefer to object the draft assessment order before Ld Dispute Resolution Panel, the AO passed the final assessment order. The Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. appeal filed by the assessee before Ld CIT(A) was partly allowed. Hence both the parties have filed appeal

Kiran Kumar Kammili, Visakhapatnam vs. ITO, Ward International Taxation, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 234/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: FixedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 234/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Kiran Kumar Kammili, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 30-87-11, Kranthi Rh Colony, Ward International Taxation, Duvvada, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Amqpk 3056 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Kumar Pal ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri Kumar PalFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 253(3)

/Date of : 31/01/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R PER S. BALAKRISHNAN, Accountant Member : This appeal filed by the assessee against the final assessment order of the Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward – International Taxation, Vizag passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income ... wherein it was stated that the assessee being a Non-Resident was not available in India 3 at the time of passing of Final Assessment Order and therefore the appeal could not be filed within the time as prescribed U/s. 253(3) of the IT Act, 1961. It is pertinent

Avinash Kumar, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1629/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Acit, Circle 2(1) Avinash Kumar Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Flat No.D/5, B Block, Shiv Kumar Asthali, Phase Ii, Nh-33 Road, Chowringhee Square, 7 Th Vs. Mango, Jamshedpur, Floor, Kolkata-700069 Jharkhand-831012 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bifpk4983A Assessee By : Shri Manoj Soni, Ar Revenue By : Shri Gaurav Kanaujia, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Soni, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kanaujia, DR
Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 55Section 56(2)(x)

hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the addition made by the ld. AO in the final assessment order in pursuance to the direction of the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel is not as per the provisions

Nat West Markets Plc- India Branch, Kolkata vs. ACIT(I.T)-1(2), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1364/KOL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Nat West Markets Plc-India Acit (I.T)-1(2), Kolkata Branch Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 2 Nd 907, Regus, 9Thfloor, Floor, Psarcadia,4A, Abandindra Nath Vs. 110, Shanti Pally, Thakur Sarani, Kolkata-700016, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacct8020E Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ar Revenue By : Shri Gaurav Kanujia, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kanujia, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44ASection 56Section 68

order in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2020-21 in ITA No. 273/KOL/2023 as under:- “8. The ld. AO thereafter passed the final assessment order u/s 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act dated 27.01.2023, wherein the ld. AO reiterated the finding given ... DTAA (i.e. 10%) and not by applying the rate of 40% as has been done by the Assessing Officer in the final assessment order. In this regard reliance is placed on the order of Special Bench of the Tribunal in CIT vs. Clough Engineering Limited 130 ITD 137 as well

M/S. United Breweries Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1020/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K R Vasudevan &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

being sponsorship fees paid by the assessee to ICC. Our attention was drawn to paras 4 to 4.3 of the final assessment order wherein the said issue has been discussed by the AO. It has been submitted that during the relevant previous year the assessee entered into an agreement dated

M/S. United Breweries Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 1019/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K R Vasudevan & Shri Ankur Pai, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3254/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Us, It Has Been Stated That This Issue Stands Covered By The Decision Of The Tribunal In Assessee’S Own Case For The A.Y.2018-19 & 2019-20 Which Has Followed Earlier Three Tribunal Orders.

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 9

Hearing 30/01/2024 Date of Pronouncement 31/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been passed against final assessment order dated 28/07/2023 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) for the A.Y.2020-21 passed in pursuance of directions given by the DRP dated 27/06/2023

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Welspun Global Brands Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2182/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Miss. Padmavathy S.() Ι.Τ.Α. No.2073/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) M/S Welspun Global Brands Ltd Vs 9Th Floor, Welspun House, Kmala Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 Pan: Aabcb5226F Appellant Dcit-8(3)(2), Mumbai Respondent Ι.Τ.Α. Νο.2182/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-8(3)(1), Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Room No.615 M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Vs M/S Welspun Global Brands Ltd 9Th Floor, Welspun House, Kmala Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 Pan: Aabcb5226F Respondent Present For The Assessee Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Ld.Sr.Counsel Alongwith Harsh Kapadia, Ca Present For The Department Shri. Nihar Samal, Ld. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31/01/2024 2

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

Resolution Panel (DRP) as per provisions of section 144C of the Act, no draft order was passed by AO but in fact direct final assessment order dated 13/03/2015 u/s 143(3) read with section 92CA(4) of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer, whereby the additions of Rs.10 ... appeal which are reproduced herein below:- 66 l(a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned final assessment order dated 13-3-2015 passed by the Id. AC) is bad in law in as much as the said order suffers from a jurisdictional error

Welspun Global Brands Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 2073/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Miss. Padmavathy S.()

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

Resolution Panel (DRP) as per provisions of section 144C of the Act, no draft order was passed by AO but in fact direct final assessment order dated 13/03/2015 u/s 143(3) read with section 92CA(4) of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer, whereby the additions of Rs.10 ... grounds of appeal which are reproduced herein below:- “l(a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned final assessment order dated 13-3-2015 passed by the Id. AC) is bad in law in as much as the said order suffers from a jurisdictional