“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

Ubs Ag, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assesse are partly allowed

ITA 5122/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2261 & 5122/Mum/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14) Ubs Ag Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Level 3, 2 North Avenue Income Tax (It)-4(3)(1) Maker Maxity, Bandra Air India Building, Kurla Complex, Bandra Nariman Point East, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu5003G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Manoj Kumar

Section 234BSection 37(1)

dated 07.11.2016 upheld the adjustment proposed by the TPO amounting to Rs.7,43,22,199/-. Thereafter the AO has passed the final assessment order vide order u/s 144C(13) r.w.s 143(3) dated 23.01.2017 and added the adjustment recommended by the TPO as upheld by the DRP in respect ... High Court against the relief on this issue provided by the ITAT vide ITA No. 4825/Mum/2014 dated 27.06.2016. Thereafter the AO passed the final assessment order on 23.01.2017 and disallowed the claim of ESOP expenses. 12. During the course of appellate proceedings before us at the outset the ld. Counsel

Ubs Ag, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assesse are partly allowed

ITA 2261/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Manoj Kumar

Section 234BSection 37(1)

Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Gurgaon vs. DDIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 7846/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Addl. Cit, Block Ep-15, Dr. Hose P. Rizal Range-2, Marg, Chanakya Puri, International Taxation, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Ddit, C/O- Deepak Chopra, 140, Circle 2(2), Aspen Greens, Nirvana International Taxation, Country, South City-Ii, New Delhi Sector-50, Gurgaon Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Ddit, C/O- Deepak Chopra, 324, Circle 2(2), E-Space, Nirvana Country, International Taxation, South City-Ii, New Delhi Sector-50, Gurgaon Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Captioned appeals are by the same assessee. Appeals for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 are against the final assessment orders passed in pursuance to the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Whereas, the appeal for assessment year 2011-12 is against the order passed ... learned DRP has issued necessary direction to the Assessing Officer in this regard and, pursuant to which, the Assessing Officer has passed the final assessment order. In this view of the matter, we uphold the decision of the departmental authorities. 19. In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Gurgaon vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1133/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2010-11

Pjsc Stroytransgaz, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5223/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2009-10

Pjsc Stroytransagaz, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5299/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2008-09

Strides Arcolab Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 15(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1903/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 92C

purpose of MAT computation. 11.5.2 The Ld.AR during the course of hearing brought to our attention that the Assessing Officer, while passing the final assessment order did not follow the direction and, therefore, prayed for a direction in this regard. We accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to consider the directions

Owens Corning (Singapore) Pvt Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Comm of Income Tax (International Tax), Circle -3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 377/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleowens Corning Inc., Dy.Cit C/O-Owens Corning (International Tax), बनाम/ (India) Pvt. Ltd., 7Th Circle-3(2)(2), Vs. Floor, Alpha Building Air India Building, Hiranandani Gardens Nariman Point, Powai, Mumbai-400076. Mumbai-400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco3242R (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bhalla.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 10/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Assessing Officer (“Ao”) Passed Under Section 143(3)R.W.S144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) In Pursuance To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“Drp”) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 28.11.2022. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1.0 “Re: Treating Fabrication Charges Received As 'Fees For Technical Services': 1

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla.ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash.DR

Section 115ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)

144C(5) of the Act dated 28.11.2022. Subsequently, the AO has assessed the total income at Rs.15,75,67,860/- and passed the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act dated 21.12.2022. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee has filed appeal before

Mall Hotel Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2490/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2023AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

order placed in the paper book Page No. 85 to 88, the similar issue has been considered by the A.O. but in the final Assessment Order for the Assessment Year 2018-19 placed on paper book 89 to 90 no such disallowance has been made. Considering the above facts

Cnh Industrial (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre Circle 6(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1890/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Cnh Industrial (Ind) Pvt. Ltd Level04, Rectangle-1, D4 Acit, Central Circle 6(3) District Center, Commercial Mumbai Vs. Complex Saket, South Delhi, Delhi 110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaci3922Q

For Appellant: Shri. Ajit Jain, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande, DR

Section 234BSection 92C

352AB was also rejected. CNH Industrial (India) Pvt. Ltd. 14. Based on this direction of the Ld DRP dated 27 06.2022 the final assessment order was passed determining total income of the assessee is Rs. 253,11,19,599/-. Assessee is aggrieved with this and has preferred this appeal

Gate Gourmet Switzerland Gmbh, Switzerland vs. DCIT Circle International Tax 1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 673/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 147Section 148

Date of hearing 15.05.2023 Date of pronouncement 15.05.2023 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: Captioned appeal by the assessee has been filed against the final assessment order dated 21.01.2023 passed under section 147 read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) pertaining to assessment ... grounds, both, on legal issues as well as on merits, however, the basic grievance of the assessee before us is, while passing the final assessment order, the Assessing Officer has not implemented the directions of learned DRP in letter and spirit as per the mandate of section 144C

Towers Watson India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3591/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhwillis Towers Watson Vs. The Dcit Central India Private Limited Circle – 8(3), Room No. 204, (F Orm Erly K Nown As T Ower S Wat S On I Nd Ia Pv T.L Td. ) Aaykar Bhavan 2 Floor, Tower B, Unitech Mumbai – 400 093 Business Park, South City-1, Sector 4, Gurgaon -122001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg2955K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nikhil Tiwari Respondent By : Manoj Kumar Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-58, Mumbai Dated 25.03.2015 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “General Ground 1. Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax 8(3), Mumbai ('Learned Ao) In Determining The Total Taxable Income Of The Appellant For The Subject Ay At Rs.7,04,44,370 Instead Of The Amount Of Rs.1,14,98,477 As Reported Under Section 115Jb Of The Act, In The Return Of Income Filed By The Appellant. 2. Erred In Accepting The Contentions Of The Learned Ao Of Making A Reference Of The Appellant'S Case To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ii(8), Mumbai (Learned Tpo) Under Section 92Ca(1) Of The Act, Without Satisfying The Conditions Specified Therein

For Appellant: Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar

Section 115JSection 92CSection 92C(4)

learned AO erred in passing a draft assessment order in the case of the Appellant in lieu of the final assessment order given that the Appellant does not fall within the definition of "eligible assessee" as per Section 144C of the Act as the transfer pricing order is invalid ... limitation, therefore, the assessee does not become eligible assesse u/s 144C of the Act, therefore, the draft assessment order dated 20.03.2013 and the final assessment order passed by the AO on 26.04.2013 were barred by limitation. 7. The ld. Counsel vide detailed submission dated 01.12.2022 submitted that order passed

Thr Infrastructure Pte Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Cir.-3(1)(1), Intl Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1915/DEL/2022[201-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order (‘Order’) passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 3(1 )(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi (‘the Ld. AO’) and directions passed ... rates shall not be further increased by surcharge & cess. 7.2 The Ld. AO has erred in computing the tax liability as annexed to final assessment order by denying beneficial tax rate as stipulated in DTAA on (a) interest income on CCDs and (b) Fee for Technical Services, which was never

Shapoorji Pallonji Oil and Gas Private Limited, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed partly for statistical

ITA 2434/MUM/2022[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Shapoorji Pallonji Oil & Gas Pvt. The National Faceless Ltd., Assessment Centre, 41/44 Shapoorji Pallonji Centre, Vs. Mumbai. Minoo Desai Marg, Colaba, Mumbai-400 005. Pan No. Aaecc 9599 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Gautam Thacker Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 02/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Gautam ThackerFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

Date of Hearing 02/05/2023 : Date of pronouncement 11/05/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against final assessment order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer of National Faceless Appeal assessment unit, pursuant to the direction of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated ... rejected a fresh claim of allowing capital loss to the assessee. loss to the assessee. In the impugned final assessment order impugned final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer passed by the Assessing Officer, pursuant to the direction of the Ld. pursuant to the direction

Unilever India Exports Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, -CC 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2108/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 234BSection 270A

With regard to the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, the Ld.DRP upheld the same. The Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order in accordance with the directions of the DRP against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The issues contended through various grounds

Unilever India Exports Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT - Central Circle - 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2107/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 234BSection 270A

Linklaters LLP, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It) 3(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7307/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Lovish Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)

Hearing – 17/04/2023 Date of Order – 11/05/2023 O R D E R The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned final assessment order dated 03/10/2017, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), pursuant to the directions dated

Fusion Jewellery Mfg. Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 9, Mumbai

ITA 3853/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57Section 92C

compute the total income of the Appellant in conformity with the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) determined by the TPO, passed the Final Assessment Order, dated 10.04.2014, making, inter alia, Transfer Pricing Addition of INR 82,97,763/-. Subsequently notice was issued by the PCIT under Section

Narayan Devarajan Iyengar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, International Tax, Ward 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 106/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram a/wFor Respondent: Shri Dilip K. Shah

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148

./2023 S.A. no.29/Mum./2023 O R D E R PER BENCH The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned final assessment order dated 15/11/2022, passed under section 147 r/w section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), pursuant to the directions dated 26/10/2022 ... balance amount of rent received of Rs.8,92,672. In conformity with the directions issued by the learned DRP, the AO vide impugned final assessment order Narayan Devarajan Iyengar ITA no.106/Mum./2023 S.A. no.29/Mum./2023 dated 15/11/2022 passed under section 147 r/w section 144C(13) of the Act made

ACIT Cir 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Canvas M Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7163/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Canvas M Technologies Ltd. Acit Cir 2(3)(1) (Now Known As M/S. Tech Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Mahindra Ltd.) Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo Mumbai-400 020 Bunder, Mumbai – 400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc8665N Assessee By : Mr. Viral Shah, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023

For Appellant: Mr. Viral Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande, DR

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

file any objection before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel but consented for filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A). Therefore, the final assessment order was passed wherein the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹30,37,46,080/- incorporating the above addition of ₹22.67 crores. 08. Aggrieved