← 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

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

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

ITA 7166/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

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

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

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

ITA 2069/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

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

Sabre Travel Network (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1056/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)Section 92C

have become academic and does not warrant separate adjudication. Credit for payment of tax 18. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee, in the final assessment order did not give credit for self assessment tax to the extent of Rs.3 crores and that there was no specific reason provided

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

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

ITA 1745/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

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

Eos Power India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 862/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 2(22)Section 92Section 92C

made on 2nd December, 2011. 07. The assessee did not file any objection before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel and therefore, the final assessment order under Section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act was passed on 31st January, 2012, ITA Nos. 862 & 6881/Mum/2013 EOS Power India ... learned Dispute Resolution Panel also upheld the manner of determination of Arm‟s Length Price of the international transaction. Based on this, the final assessment order was passed on 6th September, 2013, which is challenged before us. 017. The learned Authorized Representative reiterated his argument made

Eos Power India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6881/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 2(22)Section 92Section 92C

made on 2nd December, 2011. 07. The assessee did not file any objection before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel and therefore, the final assessment order under Section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act was passed on 31st January, 2012, ITA Nos. 862 & 6881/Mum/2013 EOS Power India ... learned Dispute Resolution Panel also upheld the manner of determination of Arm‟s Length Price of the international transaction. Based on this, the final assessment order was passed on 6th September, 2013, which is challenged before us. 017. The learned Authorized Representative reiterated his argument made

Ge Global Parts & Products Gmbh, Switzerland vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed, as indicated

ITA 2036/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Energy Parts Inc., Vs. Acit, C/O-Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, Circle 1(13)(1), Jaypee Wishtown, International Taxation, Sector 128, New Delhi Noida Pan :Aaccg2798N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Global Parts & Products Vs. Acit, Gmbh, Circle 1(3)(1), Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, International Taxation, Jaypee Wishtown, New Delhi Sector 128, Noida Pan :Aagcg3668K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

hearing 25.07.2023 Date of pronouncement 25.07.2023 ITA Nos.2033, 2034, 2035 & 2036/Del/2022 ORDER Captioned appeals have been filed by two different assessees challenging the final assessment orders passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment years

Ge Global Parts & Products Gmbh, Switzerland vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed, as indicated

ITA 2035/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Energy Parts Inc., Vs. Acit, C/O-Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, Circle 1(13)(1), Jaypee Wishtown, International Taxation, Sector 128, New Delhi Noida Pan :Aaccg2798N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Global Parts & Products Vs. Acit, Gmbh, Circle 1(3)(1), Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, International Taxation, Jaypee Wishtown, New Delhi Sector 128, Noida Pan :Aagcg3668K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

hearing 25.07.2023 Date of pronouncement 25.07.2023 ITA Nos.2033, 2034, 2035 & 2036/Del/2022 ORDER Captioned appeals have been filed by two different assessees challenging the final assessment orders passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment years

Ge Energy Parts Inc., Usa vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed, as indicated

ITA 2034/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Energy Parts Inc., Vs. Acit, C/O-Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, Circle 1(13)(1), Jaypee Wishtown, International Taxation, Sector 128, New Delhi Noida Pan :Aaccg2798N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Global Parts & Products Vs. Acit, Gmbh, Circle 1(3)(1), Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, International Taxation, Jaypee Wishtown, New Delhi Sector 128, Noida Pan :Aagcg3668K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

hearing 25.07.2023 Date of pronouncement 25.07.2023 ITA Nos.2033, 2034, 2035 & 2036/Del/2022 ORDER Captioned appeals have been filed by two different assessees challenging the final assessment orders passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment years

G E Energy Parts Inc., Usa vs. ACIT Circle-1(13)(1) Internationaltaxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed, as indicated

ITA 2033/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Energy Parts Inc., Vs. Acit, C/O-Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, Circle 1(13)(1), Jaypee Wishtown, International Taxation, Sector 128, New Delhi Noida Pan :Aaccg2798N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Global Parts & Products Vs. Acit, Gmbh, Circle 1(3)(1), Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, International Taxation, Jaypee Wishtown, New Delhi Sector 128, Noida Pan :Aagcg3668K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

hearing 25.07.2023 Date of pronouncement 25.07.2023 ITA Nos.2033, 2034, 2035 & 2036/Del/2022 ORDER Captioned appeals have been filed by two different assessees challenging the final assessment orders passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment years

We Are Voices Entertainment Inc, Gurgaon vs. DCIT International Taxation 3(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1474/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 234ASection 270A

vide its order dated 08.03.2022 upheld the finding of the Ld. AO. Pursuant to the DRP’s order, the Ld. AO passed the final assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act on 26.04.2022 by recording his findings as under:- “4.3 Characterisation of income: In this

DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Mondon Investments Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 4014/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle 2(2)(1), Versus Mondon Investments Ltd., International Taxation, C/O Khiwani & Co., Cas, New Delhi. East Patel Nagar, Main Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aafcm8386H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit/Dr

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(15)Section 144C(3)Section 292BSection 92C

assessee did not raise any objections against the draft assessment order within the statutory period of limitation, the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order on 19.01.2017 under section 143(3) read with section 144C(3) of the Act determining total income at Rs.29,06,35,700/-. Against the second ... order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), the Department is not in appeal. 7. In so far as the appeal preferred by the assessee against final assessment order dated 19.01.2017 passed in pursuance to the draft assessment order dated 09.11.2016 is concerned, learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that since he has already held

Gurdip Singh Kapur Legal Heir Smt.Nirmal Kapur, New Delhi vs. ACIT, International Taxation Circle -2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2616/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-Assessment Year: 2017-18 Late Gurdip Singh Kapur, Versus Acit, Circle 2(1)(2), Through Legal Heir-Smt. Nirmal International Taxation, Kapur, D-6/8, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Cygpp2489G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Rajesh Mahna, Adv. & Sh. Vikram Kakkar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Mahna, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 54

Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 24.07.2023 Date of pronouncement: 24.07.2023 ORDER Assessee has filed the present appeal challenging the final assessment order dated 30.08.2022 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2017-18, in pursuance

Ramanan Sivaraman Eranath Vengali, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int Tax Ward 2(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, the addition of INR 97,32,625/- made by the Assessing Officer is deleted and Ground No. 2 to 4 are allowed in terms of the aforesaid

ITA 807/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Kumar JainFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 56

objections as having been filed beyond time. Thus, confirming the addition proposed by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer passed the Final Assessment Order, dated 13/01/2023 under Section 147 read with Section 144C(13) of the Act making an addition of INR 11,62,625/- in the hands

Aegis Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2247/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2023AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 36(1)(iii)

Pronouncement 21/07/2023 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 29/07/2022 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) in pursuance of directions given by the ld. DRP vide order dated 14/06/2022 for the A.Y.2018-19 ... deleted. 13. In the result, grounds Nos.4-8 are allowed. 14. One of the issue raised before us is that final assessment order has been passed in violation of direction of the ld. DRP and AO was bound to pass the assessment order in confirmation with the direction

Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO, National E- Assessment Centre, Delhi/Local Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Is Asstt, CIT- CC-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1058/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Mahindra & Mahindra Income Tax Officer, National E- Limited Assessment Centre, Delhi Corporate Taxation, Local Jurisdictional Assessing P.K.Kurne Chowk, Vs. Worli, Officer Mumbai-400 018 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3025E Assessee By : Shri H.P. Mahajani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2023

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 92C

objection before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel passed direction on 26th March, 2021. Based on this, the final assessment order was passed on Mahindra & Mahindra Limited; A.Y. 2016-17 29th April, 2021. Wherein the total income of the assessee was assessed ... 144C bad in law and the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C r.w.s 153 barred by limitation; 2. Final assessment order passed by AO is barred by limitation Without prejudice to the above, in any event, the said final assessment order is barred by limitation, the TPO order

Crisil Ltd (in the Matter of Erstwhile Pipal Research Analytics and Information Services India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 9(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5029/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Crisil Ltd. (In The Matter Of Erstwhile Pipal Research Analytics &Information Services Acit 9(2)(2) India Pvt. Ltd. Merged With Crisil Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Ltd.) Mumbai-400020 Crisil House, Central Avenue Road, Hiranndani Business Park,Powai Mumbai-400076 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics2386Q

For Appellant: Ms. Chandani Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Vachaspati Tripathi, DR
Section 143Section 144C(13)Section 92

adjustment. The draft order itself is in the name of non-existing company, Directions atre in the name of non existing company and final Assessment orders is also passed in the name of a non-existent company which is invalid and liable to be quashed. The learned Authorized Representative submitted ... assessment order and learned Dispute Resolution Panel issued directions in the name of a non-existent entity. Consequently, the learned Assessing Officer passed final assessment order also in the name of a non-existent entity. Therefore, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision

Hardik Rao, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circlr-7, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1902/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Hardik Rao Dcit B-550, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Vs Central Circle -7 Galleria, Dlf-4, S.O. Delhi Gurgaon Pan No.Bgnpr4727F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153CSection 250Section 69ASection 69C

admitted. “8. Ground No.8 : On facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Learned Assessing Officer (‘Ld. AO’) erred in issuing the final assessment order under section 147/1440(13) /143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 15 October 2019 without quoting the mandatory document identification ... number (‘DIN’) in conformity with Para-2 and Para-3 of Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14 August 2019 and thus, the said final assessment order deserves to be held as invalid, bad in law and void ab initio.” 7. A perusal of the record shows that the final assessment order

Relaxo Footwear Ltd., Delhi vs. Assessing Officer, National E- Assesment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 590/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Relaxo Footwear Ltd., Vs Assessing Officer, Plot No.10, Aggarwal City Square, National E-Assessment Centre, Manglam Place Sec.3, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 085. Pan: Aaacr0259D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.D. Burman, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.590/Del/2021 For Ay 2016-17 Arises Out Of The Order Of The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’) Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C & 144C(13) R.W.Ss 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.03.2021. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds Before Us, The Only Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld. Ao Was Justified In Making Transfer Pricing Adjustment Of Rs.91,04,673/- Pursuant To The Directions Of The Ld. Drp In Respect Of The Specified Domestic Transactions.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.D. Burman, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 3Section 80I

observed that deduction shall not be allowed u/s 80IC of the Act in respect of such amount. Later, the ld. AO passed final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w. section 144C(13) of the Act on 30.03.2021 wherein the ld. AO adopted the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.91

ACIT, Central Circle- 4, New Delhi vs. Sanjay Duggal, Faridabad

ITA 3532/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: “1. The
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

with the copy of reasons along with copy / form of approval from Pr CIT and the material / information relied upon before passing the final assessment order, which has invalidated the entire proceedings; 1.6 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case