← 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

Fedex Express International B.V., Mumbai vs. ACIT( International Taxation)-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2463/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2019-20
Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 9(1)(i)

Pronouncement 31/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate final assessment orders dated 29/07/2022 for the A.Yrs.2018-19 & 2019-20 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144 C(13) in pursuance of directions given

M/S. Emerson Process Management (India) Pvt. Ltd (Sucessor in Interest for Pentair Valves and Controls Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/CIT/Dy/ACIT/NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, ITA number 2126/M/2022 filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2126/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Add. CIT
Section 115JSection 142Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

Valves and Controls India Private Limited, which is a non-existing company and therefore, all the above three orders are invalid. Consequently, the final assessment order passed on invalid orders is also invalid. 04. The brief fact of the case shows that i National Law Company Tribunal, Ahmadabad, has passed ... 18th xi January, 2022, passed the direction in the name of Pentair Valves and Controls India Private Limited. xii Based on this, the final assessment order was passed by the learned Assessing Officer in the name of Emerson Process Management (India) Pvt. Ltd on 24th February, 2022. 05. Challenging

Executive Trading Co. Pvt Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Comm of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 281/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69C

27/09/2021 copy of reasons recorded for re-opening assessment was furnished to the Appellant along with the notice of video conferencing. Thereafter, final Assessment Order, dated 29/09/2021, was passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act, whereby the total income of the Appellant was assessed ... Appellant kept asking for the actual copy of the reasons recorded, the same was also provided to the appellant before passing the Final Assessment Order. A perusal of the notices and the copy of reasons recorded would show that the contents of both are identical. Thus, no prejudice

Nikon India P.Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Stay

ITA 1800/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Stay Application No.256/Del/2022 (Ita No.1800/Del/2022) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nikon India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.71, Sector-32, Circle-3(1), Institutional Area, Gurgaon. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122001. Pan: Aaccn5100F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ankit Sahani, Advocates; & Shri Yishu Goel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.07.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: The Appeal In Ita No.1800/Del/2022 & The Stay Application In Sa No.256/Del/2022 Filed By The Assessee Arise Out Of The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Sa No.256/Del/2022 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 25.07.2022 By The Assessment Unit, Of The Income Tax Department (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’).

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

international transaction. The ld. DRP upheld application of AMP expenses under Intensity Approach for benchmarking the transaction on substantive basis. Final assessment order pursuant to the directions of the DRP was passed accordingly by the ld. AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

Wns Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm. of Income Tax -14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2451/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 43BSection 92C

Rs.3,84,97,764/-. The DRP also reduced the disallowance of depreciation to the tune of Rs.10,88,199. The AO passed the final assessment order pursuant to the directions of the Ld.DRP against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Transfer pricing adjustment on account of purchase ... allow claim if the same has already been disallowed in the earlier year. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer while passing the final assessment order did not give effect to the said direction of the DRP. 29. We heard the parties and perused the material available on record

Wns Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm. of Income Tax-14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2450/MUM/2022[208-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023

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

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 43BSection 92C

Rs.3,84,97,764/-. The DRP also reduced the disallowance of depreciation to the tune of Rs.10,88,199. The AO passed the final assessment order pursuant to the directions of the Ld.DRP against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Transfer pricing adjustment on account of purchase ... allow claim if the same has already been disallowed in the earlier year. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer while passing the final assessment order did not give effect to the said direction of the DRP. 29. We heard the parties and perused the material available on record

Franklin Wardcorpp India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addll./Jt/ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 2487/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Rao &For Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

that the PLI may be computed only in the respective segment of the transactions entered into by the assessee. Based on this, the final assessment order was passed on 19th April, 2021, wherein the transfer pricing adjustment was restricted to ₹2,66,44,021/-. 06. The learned Authorized Representative vehemently

Franklin Wardcorpp India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/DIT/Asstt/ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 1279/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Rao &For Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

that the PLI may be computed only in the respective segment of the transactions entered into by the assessee. Based on this, the final assessment order was passed on 19th April, 2021, wherein the transfer pricing adjustment was restricted to ₹2,66,44,021/-. 06. The learned Authorized Representative vehemently

Shri Ravinder Singh, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 9/ASR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

Range, Jalandhar your honor will observe that whole exercise of approval by Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Jalandhar and release of final assessment orders for all the years was completed within few hours which is Ravinder Singh v. Dy. CIT practically not possible. Letter for approval of assessment ... assessment year 2015-16. The approval of the draft assessment order under Section 153D was, however, given on 31.12.2017 itself and the final assessment order was passed on the same day i.e. on 31.12.2017 by the Assessing Officer. The attention of the Court is invited to the copy

Shri Ravinder Singh, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8/ASR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

Range, Jalandhar your honor will observe that whole exercise of approval by Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Jalandhar and release of final assessment orders for all the years was completed within few hours which is Ravinder Singh v. Dy. CIT practically not possible. Letter for approval of assessment ... assessment year 2015-16. The approval of the draft assessment order under Section 153D was, however, given on 31.12.2017 itself and the final assessment order was passed on the same day i.e. on 31.12.2017 by the Assessing Officer. The attention of the Court is invited to the copy

Shri Ravinder Singh, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7/ASR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

Range, Jalandhar your honor will observe that whole exercise of approval by Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Jalandhar and release of final assessment orders for all the years was completed within few hours which is Ravinder Singh v. Dy. CIT practically not possible. Letter for approval of assessment ... assessment year 2015-16. The approval of the draft assessment order under Section 153D was, however, given on 31.12.2017 itself and the final assessment order was passed on the same day i.e. on 31.12.2017 by the Assessing Officer. The attention of the Court is invited to the copy

Shri Ravinder Singh, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6/ASR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

Range, Jalandhar your honor will observe that whole exercise of approval by Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Jalandhar and release of final assessment orders for all the years was completed within few hours which is Ravinder Singh v. Dy. CIT practically not possible. Letter for approval of assessment ... assessment year 2015-16. The approval of the draft assessment order under Section 153D was, however, given on 31.12.2017 itself and the final assessment order was passed on the same day i.e. on 31.12.2017 by the Assessing Officer. The attention of the Court is invited to the copy

Shri Ravinder Singh, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5/ASR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

Range, Jalandhar your honor will observe that whole exercise of approval by Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Jalandhar and release of final assessment orders for all the years was completed within few hours which is Ravinder Singh v. Dy. CIT practically not possible. Letter for approval of assessment ... assessment year 2015-16. The approval of the draft assessment order under Section 153D was, however, given on 31.12.2017 itself and the final assessment order was passed on the same day i.e. on 31.12.2017 by the Assessing Officer. The attention of the Court is invited to the copy

DCIT, CC-20, New Delhi vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2015-16 is dismissed

ITA 1867/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Jain,, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

approval before the ld. Addl. CIT on 31.12.2017. The approval u/s 153D was granted by the ld. Addl. CIT on 31.12.2017. The final assessment order was passed by the ld. AO on 31.12.2017. The time limit for completion of search assessment was 31.12.2017. 38 cases were approved

Shiv Kumar Nayyar, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-20, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2015-16 is dismissed

ITA 1285/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Jain,, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

approval before the ld. Addl. CIT on 31.12.2017. The approval u/s 153D was granted by the ld. Addl. CIT on 31.12.2017. The final assessment order was passed by the ld. AO on 31.12.2017. The time limit for completion of search assessment was 31.12.2017. 38 cases were approved

Shiv Kumar Nayyar, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-20, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2015-16 is dismissed

ITA 1283/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: PendingITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Jain,, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

approval before the ld. Addl. CIT on 31.12.2017. The approval u/s 153D was granted by the ld. Addl. CIT on 31.12.2017. The final assessment order was passed by the ld. AO on 31.12.2017. The time limit for completion of search assessment was 31.12.2017. 38 cases were approved

Shiv Kumar Nayyar, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-20, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2015-16 is dismissed

ITA 1282/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Jain,, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

approval before the ld. Addl. CIT on 31.12.2017. The approval u/s 153D was granted by the ld. Addl. CIT on 31.12.2017. The final assessment order was passed by the ld. AO on 31.12.2017. The time limit for completion of search assessment was 31.12.2017. 38 cases were approved

Phoenix Lamps Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Noida

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

ITA 1152/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year 2012-13 Phoenix Lamps Ltd. Vs Dcit, (Formerly Known As Halonix Ltd.), Circle-2, 59-A, Nsez Phase Ii, Noida. Noida. Pan: Aabcp7718G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manu Chaurasia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: These Appeals In Ita No.1702/Del/2016 For Ay 2011-12 & In Ita No.1152/Del/2017 For Ay 2012-13 Arise Out Of The Order Ld. Assessing Officer, Circle-2, Noida (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’) Passed U/S 144C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 12.02.2016. Ita No.1152/Del/2017 2. Identical Issues Are Involved In Both These Appeals, Hence, They Are Taken Up Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. Let Us Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1702/Del/2016 For Ay 2011-12 First.

For Appellant: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Sr. DR
Section 144CSection 92C

assets in Europe dateless. Having agreed to the said fact, the ld. DRP proceeded to uphold the action of the ld. TPO. Final assessment order was passed pursuant to the directions of the ld. DRP making the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of CG and SBLC intended to be issued

Phoenix Lamps Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Noida

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

ITA 1702/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year 2012-13 Phoenix Lamps Ltd. Vs Dcit, (Formerly Known As Halonix Ltd.), Circle-2, 59-A, Nsez Phase Ii, Noida. Noida. Pan: Aabcp7718G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manu Chaurasia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: These Appeals In Ita No.1702/Del/2016 For Ay 2011-12 & In Ita No.1152/Del/2017 For Ay 2012-13 Arise Out Of The Order Ld. Assessing Officer, Circle-2, Noida (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’) Passed U/S 144C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 12.02.2016. Ita No.1152/Del/2017 2. Identical Issues Are Involved In Both These Appeals, Hence, They Are Taken Up Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. Let Us Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1702/Del/2016 For Ay 2011-12 First.

For Appellant: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Sr. DR
Section 144CSection 92C

assets in Europe dateless. Having agreed to the said fact, the ld. DRP proceeded to uphold the action of the ld. TPO. Final assessment order was passed pursuant to the directions of the ld. DRP making the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of CG and SBLC intended to be issued

Greaves Cotton Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

ITA 6560/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, Ms. Aastha &
Section 144CSection 35Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92F

been accepted therefore learned dispute resolution panel cannot issue any direction. The objection of the assessee was dismissed. 08. Based on that the final assessment order was passed by the learned assessing officer on 25/1/2015 determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 2,053,640,239/–. Assessee is aggrieved