“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

Thomas Cook (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 1 (3)92), Mumbai

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

ITA 7807/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., Dy. Cit-1(3)(2), A Wing, 11Th Floor, Marathon Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Vs. Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Lower Parel (East), Road, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaact 4050 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr : Date Of Hearing 30/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan VedFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 37(1)

Date of Hearing 30/05/2023 : Date of pronouncement 31/05/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against final assessment order dated 30.10.2019 passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-1(3)(2), Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. Assessing Officer’] for assessment year ... Pursuant to the direction o ursuant to the direction of the Ld. DRP, the Ld. Assessing he Ld. Assessing Officer passed the impugned final assessment order. In the said Officer passed the impugned final assessment order Officer passed the impugned final assessment order impugned final assessment order impugned final assessment

Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 1924/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Percy J PardiwallaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Appellant vide, order dated 31.12.2013. On the basis of the above directions issued by the DRP, the 9. Assessing Officer passed the Final Assessment Order, dated 15.01.2014, at assessed income of INR 205,26,28,060/- after (a) making Transfer Pricing Addition of INR 2,72,430/-, (b) making proportionate ... Section 10A of the Act in the Return of Income. 10. Being aggrieved, the Appellant is now in appeal before us challenging the Final Assessment Order, dated 15.01.2014, on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above which are taken up hereinafter in seriatim. Ground No. 1 Ground No.1 raised

Country Inn & Suits by Raddison, Inn, Usa vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2) (1)International Taxation, Newdelhi

In the results, appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2224/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Date of hearing : 22.05.2023 Date of pronouncement: 31.05.2023 PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.: 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 pertaining to assessment years

Radisson Hotels International Incorporated, Usa vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(1)(2), International Taxation, Delhi

In the results, appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2223/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Radisson Hotel International Incorporated, Usa vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the results, appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2222/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Urvashi Narain, Usa vs. ITO, Ward Int. Taxation 2(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1889/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)

hearing 06.04.2023 Date of pronouncement 31.05.2023 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the final assessment order dated 27.06.2022 under Section 143(3) read 2 with section 144C(13) of the Income-Tax Act,1961 pertaining to assessment year ... accordingly issued directions to the Assessing Officer. However, instead of complying with the directions of learned DRP, the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order on 27.06.2022 repeating the draft assessment order. 6. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the final assessment order is a nullity

The ACIT., Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham-Kutch vs. M/S. Woco Tech Polymere Kandla Ltd., Kandla, Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also allowed

ITA 162/RJT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

assessee to “WOCO Germany” as Nil and made an upward adjustment of Rs. 1,66,51,440/-. 4. Aggrieved against the final assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case

Rajesh Somnay, Mumbai vs. ITO, International Taxation, Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

The Appeal is allowed

ITA 533/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 54

rejected, vide order, dated 26.12.2022. Consequently, the Assessing Officer made addition of INR 88,40,429/- in the hands of the Appellant vide Final Assessment Order, dated 02.01.2023, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144C(13) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal ... before the Tribunal challenging the Final Assessment Order bringing to tax in the hands of the Appellant Hardship Compensation of INR 88,40,429/-. When the appeal was taken up, none was present for the Appellant. 8. We have heard the Learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record

Shilpa Gautam, Mumbai vs. ITO, (Int Tx), Ward-2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 409/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh AthwaleFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 56(2)(Vii)Section 56(2)(vii)

addition of INR 55,87,200/- under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act to the returned income while passing the final Assessment Order, dated 24.01.2023, under Section 147 read with Section 144C(13) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the above addition made in the Final Assessment ... Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the 8. Draft Assessment Order and the Final Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer. He submitted that there was no agreement between the parties as on the date of booking of the immovable

Sis Live, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2146/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sis Live, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 4Th Floor, Statesman House Income Tax, Building, Barakhamba Road, Circle-3(1)(2), International Connaught Place, Taxation, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Abrfs4787L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 9

hearing 19.05.2023 Date of pronouncement 30.05.2023 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: The captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee assailing the final assessment orders passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), pertaining to assessment years ... grounds raised in ITA No.2145/Del/2022: of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2) (International tax), New Delhi ('Learned AO') has erred in passing the final assessment order dated July 07, 2022 under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act') and the Ld. Dispute

Sis Live, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2145/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 9

Pratap Singh Yadav, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7 Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1898/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17 Prtatap Singh Yadav, Versus Dcit, Central Circle 7, 510, Sector 31-32A, Delhi. Gurgaon. Pan: Aahpy8387M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Virendra Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 153C

filed its objections qua the same, which were disposed of by the Dispute Resolution Panel [DRP] via order dated 20.09.2019. 16. The final assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 15.10.2019, under Section 147/144(C)( 13)/143(3) of the Act. Concededly, the final assessment order does ... Tribunal that there were exceptional circumstances, as referred to in paragraph 3 of the 2019 Circular, which would sustain the communication of the final assessment order manually, albeit, without DIN. 16.1 Given this situation, clearly paragraph 4 of the 2019 Circular would apply. 17. Paragraph 4 of the 2019 Circular

ACIT, CC-14, Delhi vs. Rama Pashu Aahar Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as indicated above and

ITA 1862/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18 Rama Pashu Aahar (P) Ltd., Versus Acit, Central Circle 14, C/O Rra Taxindia, D-28, South New Delhi. Extension, Part-1, New Delhi Pan: Aaccr1144B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle 14, Versus Rama Pashu Aahar (P) Ltd., New Delhi. C/O Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Pramod Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

Rama Pashu Aahar (P) Ltd., Bulandshahr vs. ACIT, CC-14, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as indicated above and

ITA 1456/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Pramod Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

Prashant Chandra Sadh, Mumbai vs. ITO International Tax-4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 619/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleprashant Chandrasadh, Ito,(Intltax),C4(2)(1), C-1804, Oberoi Woods, Room.No.1708, बनाम/ Off Western Express Air India Building, Vs. Highway,Goregaon East, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400063. Mumba-400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Biips5544N (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Soumendu Kumar Dash.DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 68

dated 14-12-2022. Subsequently, the A.O has assessed the total income of Rs.62,26,120/- and passed the final assessment order u/s 144C(13) r.w.s.147 of the Act dated 02.01.2023, Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee had filed the appeal with the Hon’ble Tribunal

Chetan Lachmandas Bhatia, Mumbai vs. ITO (It)-1(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 386/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrychetan Lachmandas Ito, Bhatia, C-309, 3Rd (International बनाम/ Floor, Atul Nagar Tower, Tax)-1(2)(1), Vs. Mathwadas, Ext. Road, Mumbai. Irani Wadi No.3, Kandivali West, Mumbai-400067. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aotpb9588F (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Chaitee Londhe, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondentby: Shri Ram Prakash Rastogi, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 17/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 13.12.2022 Passed By Ito, International Tax-1(2)(1), Mumbai ( In Short ‘ The Assessing Officer) For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2014-15, Pursuant To The Direction Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“Drp”) Dated 28.11.2022. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Alongwith Form No.36 Were Revised By The Assessee. The Revised Grounds Are Reproduced As Under:-

For Appellant: Ms. Chaitee Londhe, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Prakash Rastogi, Sr.AR

Section 147Section 148

की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 29/05/2023 आदेश / ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT- AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order dated 13.12.2022 passed by ITO, International Tax-1(2)(1), Mumbai ( In short ‘ the Assessing officer) for Assessment Year (“AY”) 2014-15, pursuant ... also restricted to Rs.74,57,158/-. Pursuant to the direction of Ld.DRP, the 3 | P a g e AO in the impugned final assessment order made total addition of Rs.2,29,64,588/- (Rs.1,55,00,000/- + Rs.74,57,158/-). 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal

Deepali Kiran Potnis, Kalyan vs. ITO. Int. Tax, Ward-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2153/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)

relevant for deciding the legal contention raised by the assessee. (a) Draft assessment order passed by the AO on 17-09-2021 (b) Final assessment order passed by the AO on 15.11.2021 under the impression that the assessee did not prefer to file objections before Ld Dispute Resolution Panel ... assessee has filed objections before the Ld DRP after the receipt of draft assessment order. However, the AO has proceeded to pass the final assessment order wrongly observing that the assessee has not filed objections. Later on he has passed another order titled as “Give Effect to Directions u/s 144C

Dy. CIT-5(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Vodafone Idea Limited (Earlier Know As Vodafone India Limited Which Now Stands Merged With Idea Cellular Limited (Icl) and Consequently Known As Vodafone Idea Limited), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 2429/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M Balaganeshvk-Vk-La- 2429@Eaqcbz@2019 ¼Fu-Oa- 2009&10½ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 5Th Floor, Room No.525, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Mumbai-400 020 Cuke Vs. M/S Vodafone Idea Limited 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Pandurang Budhakar Marg, Worli Mumbai-400 030 ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Pan No. Aaach5332B Izr;K{Ksi-La- 32@Eaqcbz@2020 ¼Fu-Oa- 2009&10½ Co No.32/Mum/2020 (A.Y.2009-10) M/S Vodafone Idea Limited 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Pandurang Budhakar Marg, Worli Mumbai-400 030 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaach5332B Cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 5Th Floor, Room No.525, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: S/Shri P. J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate with Ketan Ved izfroknh }kjk@For Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 154

Rs.5,09,100/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income on 31.09.2011 declaring taxable income of Rs.8,44,31,495/-. The final assessment order was passed for AY 2009-10 on 21.01.2014 u/s 144C(3) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act determining total income of Rs.749

Infobip Limited, United Kingdom vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Int. Tax. 2(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 820/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Bhavya Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay Vasanta, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 92C

dated 09.02.2022 confirmed the addition of Rs. 83,04,370/- rejecting the objections raised by the assessee. The Ld. AO thereafter passed the final assessment order dated 28.02.2022 under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act pursuant to the directions of the Ld. DRP by recording the following

Mohit Maheshwari, Mumbai vs. Int. Tax Ward- ITO 3(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 602/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 148Section 69

under section 69 of the Act. The Learned DRP confirmed the addition and accordingly, the AO added the above said amount in the final assessment order. Hence the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Learned AR submitted that the assessee is a resident of Singapore