“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

Hcl Singapore Pte Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle International Taxation 2(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 537/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 144C(13)

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reassessment proceedings undertaken by the assessing officer culminating in final assessment order are without jurisdiction, void ab initio and bad in law.. 2.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... assessing officer erred in passing final assessment order without appreciating that there exist no reasons to believe that income of the Appellant for the relevant assessment year has escaped assessment warranting initiation of reassessment proceedings. 2.3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing

Hcl Technologies Denmark Aps, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle- 2(1)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 528/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 144C(13)

Hewitt Associates (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5418/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2008-09 Hewitt Associates (India) Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd. Hewitt Tower, Circle – 10 (1) Sector-42, Dlf City, New Delhi Gurgaon Haryana Pan No.Aabch1559D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Ajit Jain, Ca Sh. Arpan Khanna, Ca Sh. Piyush Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2023 Order

Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92F

undertaken by the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 10 (1), New Delhi (the Ld. AO) vide final assessment order dated August 24, 2012 (received by the Appellant on August 29, 2012) passed under section 143 (3) read with section 144C (13) of the Income ... raised before the DRP and the DRP vide order dated 13.06.2012 dismissed the objections and pursuant to the order of the DRP the final assessment order was framed by making addition of Rs.440638092/-against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The Transfer Pricing Adjustment comprises

Ahlstrom Fibercomposites India Pvt. Ltd., Mundra (Kutch) vs. The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

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

ITA 437/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 437/Rjt/2018 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Year:2014-2015 Ahlstrom Munksjo Vs. D.C.I.T, Fibercomposites(India) Pvt. Ltd., Gandhidham Circle, Mundra Sez Integrated Textile & Gandhidham. Apparel Park (Mitap), Plot No.07, Survey No.141, Mundra, Kutch-370421. Pan: Aagca9137M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, A.R Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, C.I.T Dr सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2023 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, C.I.T DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 92

objection by following the order of predecessor DRP in own case of the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14. Consequently, the AO in the final assessment order made the disallowance of the above stated expenditure and added to the total income of the assessee. 14. Being aggrieved by the order

Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt Ltd, Thane vs. Asst CIT CC 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7861/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Panasonic Life Solutions India Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax (Formerly Known As Anchor Central Circle 7(2) Electricals Private Limited) 3Rd Floor, B Wing, 655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. I – Think Techno Campus, M.K. Road, Pokhran Road No.2, Thane Mumbai-400 020 (West) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2190C Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08-12-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 153Section 80ISection 92C

only with a view to revive original assessment proceedings which got time barred and hence ought to be quashed, Without prejudice, passing the final assessment order as against the draft assessment order Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2012-13 9. without prejudice, erred in upholding the validity ... also followed with notice initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which makes the draft assessment order as final assessment order which is in contravention of provision of Section 144C of the Act, so the final assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer is based

ACIT Circle-2(2)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Michelin Global Mobility Sa, Switzerland

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1748/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 115ASection 234ASection 270A

Advance Ruling (AAR) taken by the payer of the appellant wherein such reimbursement of cost is held as not taxable, while passing the final assessment order. 6. Ground 3: That, the Learned AO erred both in law and on the facts of the case by classifying the administration

DCIT Central Cicle-14, New Delhi vs. Rama Allied Products Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for the AY 2017-18 is dismissed and CO of the Assessee for the AY 2017-18 is allowed

ITA 1680/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

filed its objections qua the same, which were disposed of by the Dispute Resolution Panel [DRP] via order dated 20.09.2019. 16. The final assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 15.10.2019, under Section 147/144(C)(13)/143(3) of the Act. Concededly, the final assessment order does ... Tribunal that there were exceptional circumstances, as referred to in paragraph 3 of the 2019 Circular, which would sustain the communication of the final assessment order manually, albeit, without DIN. 16.1 Given this situation, clearly paragraph 4 of the 2019 Circular would apply. 17. Paragraph 4 of the 2019 Circular

Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2241/AHD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2241/Ahd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Vodafone India Services बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle- Pvt. Ltd. 4(1)(2) Vs. Indiabulls Finance Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Room 1201, 12Th Floor, Tower-1, No.209, Pratyaksh Kar Senapati Bapat Road, Bhavan, Near Elphinstone (West), Polytechnic, Ambawadi, Mumbai-400013. Ahmedabad-380015. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz1849D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Fereshte Sethna (Adv) Revenue By: Letter Dated 11.10.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 31.08.2018, Arising Out Of The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Dated 05.12.2014 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. In The Several Grounds Raised In The Appeal, The Sole Grievance Of The Appellant Is Against The Action Of The Ao/Ld. Cit(A) In Not Allowing The Depreciation Claimed On Goodwill.

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte Sethna (Adv)For Respondent: Letter dated 11.10.2023

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 92C

assessee company against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad dated 31.08.2018, arising out of the final assessment order passed u/s 143(3)/144C(13) dated 05.12.2014 for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. In the several grounds raised in the appeal, the sole grievance ... thus disposed of the objections in view of lack of jurisdiction. The AO accordingly framed the impugned final assessment order dated 3 A.Y. 2009-10 Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. 05.12.2014 u/s 143(3)/144C(13) of the Act in which the total income was assessed at the same figure