“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

Shri Ravi Ramakrishnan, Mumbai vs. International Tax Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid directions

ITA 646/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.646/मुं/2023 (िन.व.2014-15) Ravi Ramakrishnan, 205/404, Khar Rose Minar Building, 4Th Floor, 10Th Road, Khar (West, Mumbai 400 052 Pan: Anwpr-2793-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. International Tax Ward 4(1)(1), Room No.1729, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Anushree Gupta "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Anil Sant सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/09/2023 आदेश आदेश/ Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 10/01/2023 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act], For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds In Appeal: “ The Following Grounds Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law, The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. Ao') Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) / Directions Passed By The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp') Under 2 Section 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act1) Is Bad, Both In The Eye Of Law & On The Facts On Account Of:

For Appellant: Ms. Anushree GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

independent of and without prejudice to one another: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the final assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. AO') under section 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) / Directions passed by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') under

Softwareone Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2) Int.Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1840/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Vasanta, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 20.09.2023 Date of pronouncement: 25.09.2023 ORDER Captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee, challenging the final assessment orders passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, pertaining to assessment years ... India. Accordingly, learned DRP directed the Assessing Officer to verify the materials on record and tax the receipts of the assessee. In final assessment order, out of the total receipts shown to be from sale of software, the Assessing Officer treated an amount of Rs.3

Softwareone Pte.Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2) Int.Taxation, Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1839/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Goto Technologies Ireland Unlimited Company (Formely Known As Logmeln Ireland Unlimited Company), Dublin vs. ACIT Circle International Taxation 2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed

ITA 1514/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Goto Technologies Ireland Versus Acit, Circle 2(2)(1) Unlimited Company(Formerly International Taxation, Known As Logmein Ireland New Delhi. Unlimited Company), Dublin. Pan: Aaccl4273H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2020-21 Goto Technologies Ireland Versus Acit, Circle 1(3)(1) Unlimited Company(Formerly International Taxation, Known As Logmein Ireland New Delhi. Unlimited Company),Ireland. Pan: Aaccl4273H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Little Fairy Limited, Nicosia vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax. 2(2)(1), Delhi

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1512/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri G. C. Srivastava

Return filed on 29.11.2016 (ii) Draft assessment order (ii) Draft assessment order passed on 29.12.2018 passed on 30.12.2018 (iii) Final assessment (iii) Final assessment order 11.02.2019 order 20.02.2019 4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further made the following submissions:- i) As per Section 144C

Little Fairy Ltd, Nicosia vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1511/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri G. C. Srivastava

Telefonica Uk Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int Tax), Range-4(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 772/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Us On Merits Is With Regard To Ground No.11-19 Which Releates To Cellular Roaming Charges & Treating The Amount Of Rs.7,45,72,450/- Taxable Under 9(1)(Vi) Of The Act & Also As Per India-Uk Dtaa Under Article 13(3). At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That This Issue Stands Covered In The Case Of M/S. Telefonica Depreciation Espana Sa Vs. Cit In Ita No.2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2022& 817/Bang/2022 For The A.Yrs. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 3. The Brief Facts Are That Assessee, I.E., Telefonica Uk Ltd Is A Company Incorporated Under The Laws Of United Kingdom Of Great Britain & Northern Ireland (Uk) & Is A Tax Resident Of Uk. The Assessee Is A Non-Resident Telecommunication Service Provider, Primarily Engaged In The Business Of Providing Mobile & Broadband Services Along With Various Other Ancillary Services Such As Text, Media Messaging, Games, Music, Video & Data Connections In The United Kingdom.

Section 144Section 148

AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): In so far as appeals for ITA No.771/Mum/2023 & ITA No.772/Mum/2023 for A.Y.2014-15 have been passed by the assessee against final assessment order dated 25/01/2023 & 30/01/2023 respectively passed u/s.144 r.w.s. 144C(13) & 147 r.w.s.144C(13) in pursuance of directions given by the DRP dated 28/12/2022. M/s.Telefonica ... Assessing Officer with respect to FTS and directed the Assessing Officer to tax the same as Royalty. 12. The Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order dated 25 January 2023 in conformity with the directions of the M/s.Telefonica UK Ltd DRP and taxed the roaming charges as Royalty under

Telefonica Uk Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int Tax), Range-4(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 771/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Section 144Section 148

Gammon India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 7(2)., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1440/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blem/S. Gammon India Ltd V. Dcit-Central Circle 7(2) 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 3/8 Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Hamilton House, J.N. Heredia Marg Aayakar Bhavan Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle 7(2) V. M/S. Gammon India Ltd Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 1, Gammon House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai- 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 92B(1)

Income Tax (Appeals)-56, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 14.02.2019 for the A.Y.2010-11. 2. Aggrieved with the order of the final Assessment Order dated 15.05.2014, assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - “1. a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner ... Gammon India Ltd issue, however, he submitted that this issue is not pressed at this stage. But he submitted that the final Assessment Order passed is bad in law by relying on the case of M/s. Atos India Pvt Ltd., v. DCIT in ITA.No.1795/Mum/2017 dated 23.02.2023. Accordingly, the issue

DCIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Gammon India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2990/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Section 92B(1)

Essar Projects India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 1992/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 238Section 33(5)Section 52

22/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate impugned final assessment order dated M/s. EPC Constructions India Ltd. (Formerly known as Essar Projects (India) Limited 29/12/2016 for A.Y.2013-14 and dated 31/01/2017 for A.Y.2012-13 passed u/s.143

Akashdeep Singh Puri, Greater Kailash Part- II vs. DCIT, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(2), Civic Centre

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 434/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 19.09.2023 Date of pronouncement 22.09.2023 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee challenging the final assessment order dated 28.01.2022 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act for the assessment year 2018-19 in pursuance ... Officer to examine and verify the details filed by the assessee and complete the assessment proceeding through a speaking order. However, in the final assessment order, the Assessing Officer repeated the addition as was made in the draft assessment order. 6. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee reiterated

Operadora Comercial De Desarrollo S.A. De C.V., Mexico vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2395/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 . Operadora Commercial De Vs. Dcit, Desarrollo S.A. De C.V. International Taxation, Mexico, Circle-2(2)(2), C/O- Bhatia & Bhatia, New Delhi Chartered Accountants, First Floor, 81, Hemkunt Colony, New Delhi Pan :Aabco9252E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 50Section 90(2)

Vasanta, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 21.09.2023 Date of pronouncement 21.09.2023 ORDER Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the final assessment order dated 06.06.2022 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), pertaining to assessment year

Bnp Paribas, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 840/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bnp Paribas V. Acit (International Taxation) 1 North Avenue, Maker Maxity Circle – 1(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex Room No. 1810A, 18Th Floor Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacb4868Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

Date of Pronouncement : 20.09.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against 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

Mondelez India Foods P.Ltd (Formerly Known As Cadbury India Limited), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7104/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14A

Ground No.39 2. The assessee also raised an additional ground in both AY 2013-14 and AY 2013-14 contending the validity of final assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s.144C relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Roca Bathroom Products ... where the DRP reduced the disallowance to Rs.1,14,85,140. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the DRP directions. 7. The Ld.AR during the course of hearing presented a chart to submit that

Van Oord India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 792/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy() & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(14)Section 271(1)(c)

Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP rejected the objections from the assessee and confirmed the TP adjustment. The Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order pursuant to the directions of the DRP against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld.AR submitted that the issue

Lionbridge Technologies Llc (Formerly Known As Lionbridge Technologies, Inc.), Usa vs. ACIT Circle International Tax. 2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1905/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 . Lionbridge Technologies Llc Vs. Acit, (Formerly Known As Lionbridge Circle International Tax - Technologies, Inc.), 2(2)(1), 890, Winter Street – Suite 225, New Delhi Waltham, Ma – 02451, Usa Pan :Aaecl2198K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Vasanta, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 20.09.2023 Date of pronouncement 20.09.2023 ORDER Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the final assessment order dated 28.04.2023 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), pertaining to assessment

ACIT(Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tcs Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5904/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 19Section 40Section 90(1)(a)

software, technical & consultancy services, towards interest chargeable from AE, towards corporate guarantee and receipt of brand royalty. The Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order incorporating the TP adjustment. The Assessing Officer also made various adjustments on the corporate tax brand to arrive at the assessed income of Rs.18752

Tata Consultancy Serrvices Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-1, Mumbai

ITA 5199/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 19Section 40Section 90(1)(a)

M/S. Steag Energy Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in respect to Ground No

ITA 835/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. Steag Energy Services Vs. Acit, (I) Pvt. Ltd, Circle-24(2), 903, Bhikaji Cama Bhawan, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcs1399L

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(2)

report to the AO proposing the adjustment of Rs. 2,09,91,628/- which was adopted by the ld AO in the final assessment order dated 29.10.2015. Against the final assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide its order dated 26.04.2019 granted partial relief