“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

Sujata Banerjee, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 517/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 . Ms. Sujata Banerjee, Vs. Acit, C/O- N. Mehta & Co. (Pao Circle-1(1)(2), Holder), Cas, Unit-9, Level-3, International Taxation, Radha Chs Ltd., Telli Park New Delhi Road, Andheri East, Mumbai Pan :Byopb3681F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147

Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 10.10.2023 Date of pronouncement 16.10.2023 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the final assessment order dated 25.01.2023 passed for the assessment year 2015-16, in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’). 2. The dispute ... rejoinder. The assessee's objections made at all grounds in this regard are hereby, disposed off accordingly.” 4. However, in the final assessment order, the Assessing Officer again repeated the addition made in the draft assessment order. 5. We have heard Sh. Porus Kaka, learned Senior Counsel appearing

Amadeus It Group Sa, Spain vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1) Int.Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 1742/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2020-21

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

Section 143(3)

four issues mentioned in para 4 above. Consequent to the directions of the Ld. DRP, the Ld. AO passed the final assessment order on 30.5.2023 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) computing the total income of the assessee as under:- Computation of Income: (Amount in INR) A. Computation

Chw Forge Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Spl Range 2(4), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2980/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Chandra Mohan Garg & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediachw Forge Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit Near Hapur Road Flyover, Special Range 2(4) Maliwara, Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh - 201 001 Pan No. Aaacc 6049 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Manoj Singhal, C.A. Revenue By Shri N. K. Bansal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

intimation was drawn under Section 143(1) of the Act towards belated payment of employees contribution and there is no whisper in the final assessment order as to whether this aspect has been considered while framing the assessment. It was submitted that it was quite possible that such issue

Legrand Nederland B.V., Mumbai vs. Asstt. Comm. of Income Tax 3(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2487/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelegrand Nederland B.V. V. Acit (Intl. Taxation) – 3(1)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building 61/62, 6Th Floor Nariman Point, Mumbai Kalpatru Square, Kondivita Road Off. Andheri Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400059 Pan: Aaccl1156B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Shri Prayas Jain Department Represented By : Shri Amit Kumar Soni

Section 10(34)Section 112(1)(c)Section 115Section 144C(5)Section 2(22)(d)Section 244ASection 270A

Pronouncement : 13.10.2023 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 Commissioner of Income Tax (DRP-1), Mumbai-3 [hereinafter in short “Ld.DRP”] dated ... Legrand Nederland B.V. working of the accumulated loss computed by the assessee is extracted in Para No.3.4.1 on Page No. 13 of the final assessment order whereas the working of accumulated profit computed by the Assessing Officer is discussed in Para No. 3.4.2 on Page No.14 of the final assessment

Teradata India Pvt Ltd, Grugram vs. DCIT Circle-3(1), Gurugram

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

ITA 2337/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Transfer Pricing Officer - 1(3)(2). New Delhi (the Learned TPO"), the draft assessment order and the final assessment order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi ("Learned AO") pursuant to the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel 1, New Delhi ... Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Transfer Pricing Officer - 1(3)(2). New Delhi ("the Learned TPO"), the draft assessment order and the final assessment order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi ("Leamed AO") pursuant to the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel 1, New Delhi

ACIT-Circle-3(1), Gurgaon vs. Teradata India Private Limited, Gurgaon

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

ITA 1430/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

Teradata India P.Ltd, Gurugram vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Gurugram

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

ITA 1248/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

Guala Closures (India) Pvt. Ltd., Panaji vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji., Select City

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 205/PAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Shivshankar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 144CSection 253Section 263Section 4

issues, that AO has not properly followed the direction u/s. 144A. But, he is quiet silent and has nowhere mentioned that the final assessment order is passed after the direction of DRP. Admittedly, this is not a case, where draft assessment order is being revised. This is a case where ... final assessment order passed pursuant to the direction of DRP u/s. 144(3) is being revised by Ld.CIT. Ld. Counsel of the assessee in this regard submits that from the Finance Act, 2009, memorandum explaining the rationale behind the insertion of section 144C of the Act by the Finance Bill

Rosoboronservice (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground number 2 – 6 [ except 4, of the appeal are restored to the file of the learned AO/TPO to benchmark the international transaction afresh by selecting first the A

ITA 7255/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Deputy Commissioner Of Rosoboronservice (India) Limited Income Tax-15(3)(1) R-700, Ttc Industrial Estate, Room No. 473, Aayakar P.O. Ghansoli, Midc Rabale, Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400701 Bhawan, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcr0040B Assessee By : Mr. Gaurav Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2023

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92(3)Section 92C

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal as under:- 1. “That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the final assessment order dated 24 October 2018 (and received by the Appellant on 29 October 2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, 15(3)(1), Mumbai ... With respect to the disallowance of ARI mismatch was confirmed to Rs. 7,51,252/-. 010. Accordingly, final assessment order was passed on 20.12.2017 determining income at Rs. 5,55,84,393/- .Assessee aggrieved with the same is an appeal before us. 011. Ground no. 1 general and nature

Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, Ireland vs. ACIT Circle 1(1)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes subject to the directions contained in para 11, 18 and 19 above

ITA 913/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

acting in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble DRP wherein it had directed the Ld. AO to pass the final assessment order after considering the orders passed by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("ITAT") in the Appellant's own cases for earlier years, wherein based ... same is acceptable or otherwise to the revenue.” 5. Consequent to the above directions of the Ld. DRP, the Ld. AO passed the final assessment order dated 30.01.2023 holding as under: “12. Consequently, the assessee was asked the following vide Notice u/s 142(1) dated 9/03/2022: As per your earlier

Bain & Company, Inc., Usa vs. DCIT, Int.Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1620/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vii)

Vasanta, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 03.10.2023 Date of pronouncement 12.10.2023 ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the final assessment order dated 18.05.2022 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 pertaining to assessment year

ACIT Circle -2(1)(1) - International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Innways Venture Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 92/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)

loss, which is prejudicial to the interest of the assessee. Since there is no variation in the income of the assessee, the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is barred by limitation. 5. When this issue was raised before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) dismissed ... variation in the income as such. Therefore, recourse to the provisions of section 144C(1) of the Act was unwarranted making the final assessment order barred by limitation. 9. On identical facts, this Tribunal in the case of Super Brands, UK 147 Taxmann.com 323 has held as under

M/S. Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT2(3) (1) -, Mumbai

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

ITA 468/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Section 143Section 234Section 234BSection 80

Pronouncement 10/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against final assessment order dated 28/01/2022 passed u/s. 143 (3) r.w.s. 144C (13) for the A.Y. 2017-18, in pursuance of direction given by the DRP vide order dated

Gurner India Private Ltd., Delhi vs. Circle 10(2), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 796/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 796/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 M/S. Gurner India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Faceless Assessmetn 714, International Trade Centre, Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi-110019 Pan : Aadcg2938H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 92C

Date of hearing: 27.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 10.10.2023 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The appellant/ assessee has come in appeal challenging the final assessment order dated 25.02.2022 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred