← 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

Factiva Ltd. C/O. Price Waterhouse & Co. Lltp, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1247/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2023AY 2017-18
Section 9(1)(vi)

Pronouncement 09/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against final assessment order dated 29/06/2019 passed in M/s. Factiva Limited pursuance of direction given by the ld. DRP vide order dated 20/04/2019 for the A.Y.2016-17; and final assessment

DCIT CC 3(2) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. World Sports (India) P . Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, CO of the assessee is allowed and departments appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5328/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2023AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Karan P. Unavekar (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153BSection 92C

Thereafter, the AO passed a draft order u/s 144C(1) of the Act on 25.03.2014; and the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C & 153A of the Act on 27.05.2014. According to assessee, passing of TPO order on 30.01.2014 and the final assessment order by AO dated ... assessment order by 31.03.2014. However, in the present C.O. 266/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2009-10 World Sports (India) Pvt. Ltd. case, the AO framed the [final] assessment order on 27.05.2014 which is beyond the limitation period and so, bad in law. And for such a proposition, the Ld AR relies

Murex Southeast Asia Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Comm. of Income Tax (It) 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this issue is passed in favour of the assessee

ITA 2338/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

Pronouncement 08/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the final assessment order dated 18/07/2022 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) passed in pursuance of direction given by the ld. DRP vide order dated 09/09/2021

Goldman Sachs & Co., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1264/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234A

SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present batch of 4 appeals has been filed by the assessee challenging the separate impugned final assessment orders passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Dispute Resolution ... separated from other expenses for the purpose of deciding their character. In conformity with the DRP directions, the AO passed the impugned final assessment order under section 143 (3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act on this issue. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

Goldman Sachs & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6005/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234A

SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present batch of 4 appeals has been filed by the assessee challenging the separate impugned final assessment orders passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Dispute Resolution ... separated from other expenses for the purpose of deciding their character. In conformity with the DRP directions, the AO passed the impugned final assessment order under section 143 (3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act on this issue. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

Goldman Sachs & Co, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7490/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234A

SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present batch of 4 appeals has been filed by the assessee challenging the separate impugned final assessment orders passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Dispute Resolution ... separated from other expenses for the purpose of deciding their character. In conformity with the DRP directions, the AO passed the impugned final assessment order under section 143 (3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act on this issue. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

Goldman Sachs & Company, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) 2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 401/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234A

SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present batch of 4 appeals has been filed by the assessee challenging the separate impugned final assessment orders passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Dispute Resolution ... separated from other expenses for the purpose of deciding their character. In conformity with the DRP directions, the AO passed the impugned final assessment order under section 143 (3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act on this issue. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 8(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2116/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kumar
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 801ASection 80I

Order – 04/05/2023 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has filed by the assessee challenging the impugned final assessment order dated 30/01/2017, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), pursuant to the directions dated

I.A.R. Systems Aktiebolag, Mumbai vs. DCIT(It)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 598/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vi)

notified in the official gazette by the Parliament of India. 14. Subsequent to the order of the Ld. DRP, Assessing Officer passed the final Assessment Order dated 31.01.2022 and Ld. AR submitted that Assessing Officer while passing the final Assessment Order reproduced his finding in draft Assessment Order and finally ... Page No. 31 of the final Assessment Order he mentioned in Para No. 11 that this order is passed as per the directions of the Ld. DRP and observed that after considering submissions made by the assessee before the panel has dismissed all the assessee’s objections and directed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It)-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Marriott International Design & Construction Services Inc., Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is thus dismissed

ITA 2977/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit (It) – 3(2)(1) V. M/S. Marriott International Design Room No. 1632, 16Th Floor & Construction Services Inc., Air India Building, Nariman Point C/O. Marriot Hotels India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai – 400 021 303A, 304, Fulcrum B-Wing, Hiranandani Business Park Mumbai, Sahar Road Andheri (E) - 400099 Pan: Aagcm5401Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 01/Mum/2023 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 2977/Mum/2022 (A.Y: 2018-19)] M/S. Marriott International Design V. Dcit (It) – 3(2)(1) & Construction Services Inc., Room No. 1632, 16Th Floor C/O. Marriot Hotels India Pvt. Ltd., Air India Building 303A, 304, Fulcrum Nariman Point B-Wing, Hiranandani Business Park Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai, Sahar Road Andheri (E) - 400099 Pan: Aagcm5401Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Paras Savla Department Represented By : Shri Kunal Haver

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C

letter dated 11.05.2021 submitted that assessee would not file objection before Dispute Resolution Panel u/s.144C and requested the Assessing Officer to pass the final Assessment Order. Accordingly, final Assessment Order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act was passed. 3. The original return of income

Micro Focus Software Inc. (Earlier Known As Novell Inc.), Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT (Intl. Taxation)-Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2425/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 144C(5)

Direct Taxes as per BAPA executed on 20 August 2021. The Appellant has not submitted computation of gross profit as mentioned in final assessment order. 6. Without prejudice to the Ground No. 1 to Ground no. 5, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Micro Focus Software Inc. (Earlier Known As Novell Inc.), Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT (Intl. Taxation)-Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2424/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 144C(5)

Direct Taxes as per BAPA executed on 20 August 2021. The Appellant has not submitted computation of gross profit as mentioned in final assessment order. 6. Without prejudice to the Ground No. 1 to Ground no. 5, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Expeditors International of Washington, Usa vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 355/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Khare, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay Vasanta, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Date of pronouncement 02.05.2023 O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order dated 12.01.2023 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) in pursuance to the directions ... relying on its directions rendered in preceding AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19. Accordingly, the Ld. AO in his final assessment order dated 21.02.2023 confirmed the impugned additions. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and ground Nos. 2, 3 and 4 relate thereto

Bhagwati Suresh Modi, Palanpur vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all fourteen appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 747/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor R. Gheewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 153(3)Section 153CSection 69

Resolution Panel and on 30th September, 2022, the Dispute Resolution Panel passed the direction. 014. Based on this direction on 19th October, 2022, final assessment order was passed by the learned Assessing Officer ... Meanwhile, as there was a confusion in the mind of assessee that whether the Assessing Officer has passed a ‘draft assessment order’ or ‘final assessment order’, the assessee was under the impression that the learned Assessing Officer has passed the final Assessment order, preferred appeal before the learned

Bhagwati Suresh Modi, Palanpur vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all fourteen appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 746/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor R. Gheewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 153(3)Section 153CSection 69

Resolution Panel and on 30th September, 2022, the Dispute Resolution Panel passed the direction. 014. Based on this direction on 19th October, 2022, final assessment order was passed by the learned Assessing Officer ... Meanwhile, as there was a confusion in the mind of assessee that whether the Assessing Officer has passed a ‘draft assessment order’ or ‘final assessment order’, the assessee was under the impression that the learned Assessing Officer has passed the final Assessment order, preferred appeal before the learned

Bhagwati Suresh Modi, Palanpur vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all fourteen appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 745/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor R. Gheewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 153(3)Section 153CSection 69

Resolution Panel and on 30th September, 2022, the Dispute Resolution Panel passed the direction. 014. Based on this direction on 19th October, 2022, final assessment order was passed by the learned Assessing Officer ... Meanwhile, as there was a confusion in the mind of assessee that whether the Assessing Officer has passed a ‘draft assessment order’ or ‘final assessment order’, the assessee was under the impression that the learned Assessing Officer has passed the final Assessment order, preferred appeal before the learned

Bhagwati Suresh Modi, Palanpur vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all fourteen appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 744/MUM/2023[2010-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2010-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor R. Gheewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 153(3)Section 153CSection 69

Resolution Panel and on 30th September, 2022, the Dispute Resolution Panel passed the direction. 014. Based on this direction on 19th October, 2022, final assessment order was passed by the learned Assessing Officer ... Meanwhile, as there was a confusion in the mind of assessee that whether the Assessing Officer has passed a ‘draft assessment order’ or ‘final assessment order’, the assessee was under the impression that the learned Assessing Officer has passed the final Assessment order, preferred appeal before the learned

Bhagwati Suresh Modi, Palanpur vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all fourteen appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 743/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor R. Gheewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 153(3)Section 153CSection 69

Resolution Panel and on 30th September, 2022, the Dispute Resolution Panel passed the direction. 014. Based on this direction on 19th October, 2022, final assessment order was passed by the learned Assessing Officer ... Meanwhile, as there was a confusion in the mind of assessee that whether the Assessing Officer has passed a ‘draft assessment order’ or ‘final assessment order’, the assessee was under the impression that the learned Assessing Officer has passed the final Assessment order, preferred appeal before the learned

Bhagwati Suresh Modi, Palanpur vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all fourteen appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 742/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor R. Gheewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 153(3)Section 153CSection 69

Resolution Panel and on 30th September, 2022, the Dispute Resolution Panel passed the direction. 014. Based on this direction on 19th October, 2022, final assessment order was passed by the learned Assessing Officer ... Meanwhile, as there was a confusion in the mind of assessee that whether the Assessing Officer has passed a ‘draft assessment order’ or ‘final assessment order’, the assessee was under the impression that the learned Assessing Officer has passed the final Assessment order, preferred appeal before the learned

Bhagwati Suresh Modi, Palanpur vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all fourteen appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3075/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor R. Gheewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 153(3)Section 153CSection 69

Resolution Panel and on 30th September, 2022, the Dispute Resolution Panel passed the direction. 014. Based on this direction on 19th October, 2022, final assessment order was passed by the learned Assessing Officer ... Meanwhile, as there was a confusion in the mind of assessee that whether the Assessing Officer has passed a ‘draft assessment order’ or ‘final assessment order’, the assessee was under the impression that the learned Assessing Officer has passed the final Assessment order, preferred appeal before the learned