“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

Integreon Managed Solutions (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2307/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved

Section 250Section 92D

against the impugned addition and not processed before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('ld. DRP' for short). Therefore, final assessment order was passed on 22.02.2011. 6. The assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 7. The ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee ... assessee further stated that the A.O. did not have jurisdiction to raise a demand and levy penalty even before passing of the final assessment order. The ld. AR relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Marriott International Licensing Company BVV vs. DCIT (IT) (in ITA No.1621/Mum/2021

ITO 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Integreon Managed Solution (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2095/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved

Section 250Section 92D

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Authority Compqny, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation) 4(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 803/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)

Date of Pronouncement : 06.09.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. These appeals are filed by assessee against final assessment order and directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (DRP-2), Mumbai-1 [hereinafter in short “Ld.DRP”] dated ... companies. Some parts of this agreement have been reproduced by the AO in paras 8, 9, 11.3, 11.5, 11.7, 12.3 & 12.4 of the final assessment order. A perusal of these clauses/terms clearly reveals that RGA India is not legally independent. 17.2 Dependent v. Independent agent  An agent will not constitute

Hireright Ltd, Uk vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2019-20

ITA 373/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2020-21 & Asstt. Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234DSection 270A

upheld the findings of the Ld. AO. 6. Consequently, pursuant to the directions of the Ld. DRP the Ld. AO passed the final assessment order under section 143(3) r.w. section 144C(13) on 20.07.2022 for AY 2019-20 and on 25.01.2023 for AY 2021 assessing the income

Hireright Limited, London vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Int. Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2019-20

ITA 1884/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2020-21 & Asstt. Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234DSection 270A

Amadoroco Ltd, Cyprus vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1) (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1007/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: S/Sh. Amit Sharma, Sumit JainFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in passing the final assessment order without recoursing the statutory requirements of Section 144C of the Act of passing the draft assessment order before passing final assessment order and therefore the impugned assessment order passed

DCIT 14 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Communications Transformation Services Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 6240/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Tata Communications Transformations Dy. Cit (Tp)-4(2)(1) Air India Building, 5Th Floor, Services Limited Vs. D-21/C 36, G Block Bandra Kurla Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Complex, Mumbai-400 008 Pan/Gir No. Aaccv 3189 A (Assessee) : (Revenue) & Dy. Cit-14(3)(1) Tata Communications 4Th Floor, Room No. 455, Aayakar Transformation Services Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Plot No. C-21 & C-36 C Tower, Vs. Bkc Vidyanagri Po, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 098 Pan/Gir No. Aaccv 3189 Q (Revenue) : (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 2Section 92C

assessee has challenged the validity of the assessment order on the ground that the Assessing Officer ('A.O.' for short) has passed the final assessment order u/s. 2 ITA Nos. 5882 & 6240/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) Tata Communications Transformation Services Ltd. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act dated 28.01.2016 without passing ... order dated 31.10.2012 proposed a revised adjustment of Rs.9,91,21,201.83/-. Subsequent to this, the A.O. vide order dated 27.11.2012 passed the final assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Act determining the total income at Rs.14,02,26,473/- after making the proposed TP adjustment

Tata Communications Transformations Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Dict (Tp)-4(2)(1, Mumbai

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

ITA 5882/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 2Section 92C

Contitech India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2161/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kr. Bharati, CIT DR

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

analysis on this count was brought to his notice and as such the payment of royalty was not required. The AO in his final assessment order dated 26.12.2013 has taken the ALP at Nil on the basis of recommendation of the TPO without carrying out any independent investigation in terms

Ntt India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/Tax/ITO, Delhi

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

ITA 722/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ntt India Pvt. Ltd. Addl/Jt/Dy./Acit/Tax/Ito 1701-1704, B-Wing, One Bkc Level, National Faceless Assessment Centre 17 G Block, Plot No. C-65, Vs. Delhi Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaacd 2145 G (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta : Shri Sunil A Umap & Revenue By Shri Samuel Pitta Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2023 : 04.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta

Section 143(3)

Demand Computation sheet as against the correct Total income of INR 177,30,90,012/- which was mentioned in the final assessment order, resulting in an excess income of INR 2,36,53,298/-. Consequently the erroneous computation of total income results in a higher tax demand. The Appellant, therefore ... then passed the revised order dated 18.02.2022 duly giving effect to the directions of the ld. DRP. The A.O. passed the final assessment order dated 23.02.2022 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Act making an adjustment of Rs.119,52,99,430/- as per the revised order

Kellogg India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2533/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai/ Mr. AmolFor Respondent: Vachaspati Tripathi, Ld. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 250Section 270ASection 274Section 40Section 92C

issued the directions and directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to the said order, and the AO gave effects as recorded in final assessment order . 4 Kellogg India Pvt Ltd. 5.2 On perusal of the order of the CIT(DRP-1), Mumbai, it is seen that ... expenses and Rs. 40,06,846/- qua Transfer pricing adjustment qua IT related services. 3. The Assessee being aggrieved against the final assessment order dated 31 July 2022 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144(c) of the Act, preferred this appeal and raised 05 grounds of appeal

Mondelez India Foods P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 5(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1518/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 234ASection 234C

No.40 Act 2. The assessee also raised an additional ground in both AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 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 ... view of Tribunal in assessee‟s own case, we delete the impugned adjustment of Rs.1300.22 Lacs as made by Ld. AO in the final assessment order. Nothing has been shown to us that the aforesaid ruling is not applicable to the year under consideration. Ground No.3 stand allowed. With regard

Imperial Mark Trade (I) P.Ltd, Thane vs. DCIT CC 7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1453/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 254(1)Section 92C

SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the Official Liquidator on behalf of the assessee challenging the impugned final assessment order dated 30/01/2017, passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), pursuant to the directions dated ... vide its directions rejected the objections filed by the assessee without considering the aforesaid submission. In conformity, the AO passed the impugned final assessment order, inter-alia, disallowing the loss of Rs. 8,82,90,741 on high seas sales. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

Mondelez India Foods P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1240/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 234ASection 234C

Nearbuy Pte.. Ltd, Singapore vs. ACIT (Intl Tax) Circle 3(3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1607/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 143(3)

draft assessment order and accordingly rejected the objections filed by the assessee. In view of the same, the AO passed the final assessment order 4 M/s. Nearbuy Pte Ltd determining the total income at Rs.225,85,83,818/-, as initially determined in the draft assessment order. The assessee is aggrieved

DCIT Cir 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Airmid Developers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 949/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

Order – 30/08/2023 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present cross appeals have been filed challenging the separate impugned final assessment orders dated 25/09/2014, for the assessment year 2009-10, and dated 31/12/2014, for the assessment year 2010-11 passed under section 143(3) read with ... directed the AO to disallow an amount of Rs. 3 lakh under section 14A of the Act. Accordingly, the AO passed the impugned final assessment order, inter-alia, making an addition of Rs.3,00,000, under section 14A of the Act in conformity with the directions of the learned

Airmid Developers Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Cir 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1011/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

DCIT Cir 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Airmid Developers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7081/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

Airmid Developers Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6758/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

Ashutosh Sinha, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 643/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

Hearing 22/07/2023 Date of Pronouncement 29/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed against final assessment order dated 03/01/2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144C(13) in pursuance of directions given by the DRP vide order dated 19/12/2022 2. In the grounds ... filed by the assessee are not maintainable after giving detailed reasons then, there is no direction of the ld. DRP and accordingly, the final assessment order dated 31/01/2023 is barred by limitation because the ld. AO was then required to pass the order u/s.144C(3) on or before 31/05/2022