← 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

Tata Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 509/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS.PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 263

suitably modified by inserting the correct amount of Rs. 126, 19,08,529/- The relevant extracts of the grounds of appeal and final assessment order wherein the correct amount of disallowance is mentioned is enclosed as Annexure 2 and 3 respectively for your reference 2.2. Wrong paragraphs of the ITAT

Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-Circle -4(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are allowed

ITA 1492/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270Section 9(1)(i)

hearing : 20.10.2023 Pronouncement of order : 17.01.2024 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: The present appeal is directed against the Final Assessment Order 1. dated, 27/04/2022, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred ... before DRP against the Draft Assessment Order, dated 02/06/2021. The DRP, vide order dated 30/03/2022, rejected the objections. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed Final Assessment Order, dated 27/04/2022 which was rectified vide, order dated 29/04/2022 whereby addition proposed vide Draft Assessment Order, dated 12/06/2021, were made to the returned income

Aep Investments (Mauritius) Limited, Mauritius vs. ACIT Circle Intl. Taxation 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2164/DEL/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 144CSection 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 271F

Number ('DIN'). 2 AEP Investments (Mauritius) Ltd. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order passed in conformity with invalid directions of DRP is, therefore, invalid and barred by limitation. 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds

Tagit Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1945/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar[Assessment Year: 2019-20]

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

Hearing 26.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement .01.2024 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, VP, The present appeal, at the instance of the assessee, assails the final assessment order dated 23.06.2022 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’), in pursuance to the directions

I.T.O., Ward-43(2), Kolkata vs. Champalal Omprakash, Kolkata

ITA 1546/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judical Member & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.1168&1169/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Champalal Omprakash......................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Vs. Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................Respondent I.T.A. Nos.1545&1546/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................ Respondent Vs. Champalal Omprakash..........................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Appearances By: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As By The Department Against The Impugned Common Order Dated 19.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since Common Issues Involved

Section 131Section 250

supposed to decide the objections. If the same are decided against the assessee, the Assessing Officer is supposed not to pass the final assessment order for a period of four weeks from the date of disposal of objections. Though the ld. CIT(A) has been given the power of enhancement

I.T.O., Ward-43(2), Kolkata vs. Champalal Omprakash, Kolkata

ITA 1545/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judical Member & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.1168&1169/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Champalal Omprakash......................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Vs. Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................Respondent I.T.A. Nos.1545&1546/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................ Respondent Vs. Champalal Omprakash..........................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Appearances By: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As By The Department Against The Impugned Common Order Dated 19.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since Common Issues Involved

Section 131Section 250

supposed to decide the objections. If the same are decided against the assessee, the Assessing Officer is supposed not to pass the final assessment order for a period of four weeks from the date of disposal of objections. Though the ld. CIT(A) has been given the power of enhancement

Champalal Omprakash, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-43(2), Kolkata

ITA 1169/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judical Member & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.1168&1169/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Champalal Omprakash......................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Vs. Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................Respondent I.T.A. Nos.1545&1546/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................ Respondent Vs. Champalal Omprakash..........................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Appearances By: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As By The Department Against The Impugned Common Order Dated 19.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since Common Issues Involved

Section 131Section 250

supposed to decide the objections. If the same are decided against the assessee, the Assessing Officer is supposed not to pass the final assessment order for a period of four weeks from the date of disposal of objections. Though the ld. CIT(A) has been given the power of enhancement

Champalal Omprakash, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-43(2), Kolkata

ITA 1168/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judical Member & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.1168&1169/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Champalal Omprakash......................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Vs. Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................Respondent I.T.A. Nos.1545&1546/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................ Respondent Vs. Champalal Omprakash..........................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Appearances By: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As By The Department Against The Impugned Common Order Dated 19.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since Common Issues Involved

Section 131Section 250

supposed to decide the objections. If the same are decided against the assessee, the Assessing Officer is supposed not to pass the final assessment order for a period of four weeks from the date of disposal of objections. Though the ld. CIT(A) has been given the power of enhancement

Dialog Axiata Plc, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation-2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2643/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 144CSection 147Section 191Section 195Section 5

form of Interconnect Usage Charges which are liable to be taxed in India as ‘Royalty'. The ld. A.O. then passed the final assessment order dated 14.06.2022 in pursuance of the ld. DRP's direction and determined the total income at Rs.4,16,80,240/- by holding the receipt received ... into between India and Sri Lanka by holding the same to be 'royalty'. 6. The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the final assessment order passed by the ld. A.O. making an addition on the impugned receipt in pursuance to the direction

Strides Pharma Science Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15 (3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1558/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.1558 /मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2012-13) Strides Pharma Science Limited [Formerly Known As Strides Arcolab Limited/ Strides Shasun Limited] 201, Devavrata, Sector -17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan: Aadcs-8104-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle – 15(3)(2), Mumbai Room No.451, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate With Shri Ninand Patade "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Anoop Hiwase & Dr.Samuel Pitta सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/10/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/01/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 24/01/2019, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. This Appeal Emanates From The Proceedings U/S. 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’].

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate with Shri Ninand PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase &
Section 154

Thereafter, the assessee filed petition u/s. 154 seeking rectification on the ground that the assessee had filed appeal before the Tribunal against the final assessment orders for Assessment Year 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, respectively. In the said application the assessee had pointed that if, the appeals ... consequent to the order of Tribunal in the respective Assessment Years. It is an undisputed fact that the Assessing Officer while passing the final assessment order has accepted assessee’s claim of set off of brought forward business losses of Assessment Years

Strides Shasun Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 932/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.932 /मुं/2017 (िन.व. 2012-13) Strides Pharma Science Limited [Formerly Known As Strides Arcolab Limited/ Strides Shasun Limited] 201, Devavrata, Sector -17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan: Aadcs-8104-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle – 15(3)(2), Mumbai Room No.451, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate With Shri Ninand Patade "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Anoop Hiwase सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15 /01/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23/01/2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’], For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised As Many As 12 Grounds. Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate with Shri Ninand PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase
Section 143(3)

घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : 15 /01/2024 आदेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order dated 23/01/2017 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’], for the Assessment Year

Strides Shasun Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7400/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.7400 /मुं/2017 (िन.व. 2013-14) Strides Pharma Science Limited [Formerly Known As Strides Arcolab Limited/ Strides Shasun Limited] 201, Devavrata, Sector -17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan: Aadcs-8104-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle – 15(3)(2), Mumbai Room No.451, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate With Shri Ninand Patade "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Anoop Hiwase & Dr. Samuel Pitta सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/10/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/01/2024 /01/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30/10/2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’], For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Ten Grounds Of Appeal. The Assessee Has Also Raised Additional Grounds Of Appeal Vide Application Dated 26/10/2023. 3. The Ground No.1 Of Appeal Is General In Nature, Hence, Require No Separate Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate with Shri Ninand PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase &
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : 15/01/2024 /01/2024 आदेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order dated 30/10/2017 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’], for the Assessment Year

Hgc Global Communications Limited, Haryana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 28/BANG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.28/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Hcg Global Communications Ltd., Vs. Dcit (It), 16/F Hutchison Telecom Tower, Circle – 2(2), 99 Cheung Fai Road, Bengaluru. Hong Kong. Pan : Aaech 5871 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri. Aliasgar Rampurawala, Vikram Udupa, Cas Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2024 O R D E R Per George George K:

For Appellant: S/Shri. Aliasgar Rampurawala, Vikram Udupa, CAsFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 195(2)Section 201Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

George George K, Vice President : This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the Final Assessment Order dated 24.11.2020, passed under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2011-12. 2. Brief ... passed under sections 201 and 201A of the Act in the case of the payer). Pursuant to the DRP’s directions, the impugned Final Assessment Order was passed on 24.11.2020. 4. Aggrieved by the Final Assessment Order, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has raised

DCIT, New Delhi vs. I Energizer Holdings Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

ITA 4653/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

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

Court in the case of Turner International India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT held as under: “10. The short ground on which the aforementioned final assessment orders and the consequent demand notices have been challenged is that there was non-compliance with the mandatory provision contained in Section 144C ... first frame draft assessment orders. CO Nos. 353 to 356 & Others/Del/2015 Rolland Enterprises Ltd. & Others . 11. The question whether the final assessment order stands vitiated for failure to adhere to the mandatory requirements of first passing draft assessment order in terms of Section 144C

DCIT, New Delhi vs. I Energizer Holdings Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

ITA 4652/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

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

Court in the case of Turner International India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT held as under: “10. The short ground on which the aforementioned final assessment orders and the consequent demand notices have been challenged is that there was non-compliance with the mandatory provision contained in Section 144C ... first frame draft assessment orders. CO Nos. 353 to 356 & Others/Del/2015 Rolland Enterprises Ltd. & Others . 11. The question whether the final assessment order stands vitiated for failure to adhere to the mandatory requirements of first passing draft assessment order in terms of Section 144C

DCIT, New Delhi vs. I Energizer Holdings Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

ITA 4651/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

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

Court in the case of Turner International India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT held as under: “10. The short ground on which the aforementioned final assessment orders and the consequent demand notices have been challenged is that there was non-compliance with the mandatory provision contained in Section 144C ... first frame draft assessment orders. CO Nos. 353 to 356 & Others/Del/2015 Rolland Enterprises Ltd. & Others . 11. The question whether the final assessment order stands vitiated for failure to adhere to the mandatory requirements of first passing draft assessment order in terms of Section 144C

DCIT, New Delhi vs. I Energizer Holdings Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

ITA 4650/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

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

Court in the case of Turner International India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT held as under: “10. The short ground on which the aforementioned final assessment orders and the consequent demand notices have been challenged is that there was non-compliance with the mandatory provision contained in Section 144C ... first frame draft assessment orders. CO Nos. 353 to 356 & Others/Del/2015 Rolland Enterprises Ltd. & Others . 11. The question whether the final assessment order stands vitiated for failure to adhere to the mandatory requirements of first passing draft assessment order in terms of Section 144C

Marvell India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 343/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.343/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Marvell India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Tower D, 10Th & 11Th Floors, Circle – 4(1)(2), Global Technoloyg Park, Marathahalli – Bengaluru. Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaecm 5559 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mukesh Butani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. G. Manoj Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.01.2024 O R D E R Per George George K:

For Appellant: Shri. Mukesh Butani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G. Manoj Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

George George K, Vice President : This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the Final Assessment Order dated 12.04.2021, passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2016-17. 2. Brief facts ... objections raised by the assessee and confirmed the TPO adjustment proposed by the TPO. Pursuant to the DRP’s directions, the impugned Final Assessment Order was passed incorporating TP adjustment in the software development segment amounting to Rs.12,21,83,641/-. 4. Aggrieved by the Final Assessment Order, assessee

Crisil Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 9(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1345/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleιτα.Νο. 7603/Mum/2012 (A.Y: 2008-09) M/S. Crisil Limited 8Th Floor, Central Avenue Road Hiranandani Business Park Opp. D-Mart, Powai Mumbai- 400076 Pan: Aaaст3151E (Appellant) V. Addl. Cit - 8(1) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai- 400020 (Respondent) Ιτα.Νο. 1564/Mum2014 (A.Y: 2009-10) M/S. Crisil Limited Central Avenue Road Hiranandani Business Park Opp. D-Mart, Powai Mumbai- 400076 Pan: Aaaст3151E (Appellant) V. Dy. Cit (Osd) – 8(1) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai- 400020 (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)

Limited ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. The appeals relating to A.Y. 2008-09 and 2012-13 are filed by assessee against final Assessment Order and directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel – 1, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.DRP"] dated 26.09.2012 and 25.11.2016 for the A.Y.2008-09 ... short “Act"). 2. Assessee and revenue have filed cross appeals for the A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 challenging the Final Assessment order and directions of the Ld. DRP. 3. Since the issues raised in all these appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals

Crisil Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 997/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleιτα.Νο. 7603/Mum/2012 (A.Y: 2008-09) M/S. Crisil Limited V. Addl. Cit - 8(1) 8Th Floor, Central Avenue Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Hiranandani Business Park Mumbai- 400020 Opp. D-Mart, Powai Mumbai- 400076 (Respondent) Pan: Aaaст3151E (Appellant) Ιτα.Νο. 1564/Mum2014 (A.Y: 2009-10) M/S. Crisil Limited V. Dy. Cit (Osd) – 8(1) Central Avenue Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Hiranandani Business Park Mumbai- 400020 Opp. D-Mart, Powai Mumbai- 400076 (Respondent) Pan: Aaaст3151E (Appellant)

Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)

Limited ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. The appeals relating to A.Y. 2008-09 and 2012-13 are filed by assessee against final Assessment Order and directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel – 1, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.DRP"] dated 26.09.2012 and 25.11.2016 for the A.Y.2008-09 ... short “Act"). 2. Assessee and revenue have filed cross appeals for the A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 challenging the Final Assessment order and directions of the Ld. DRP. 3. Since the issues raised in all these appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals