“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

DCIT, International Taxation, Circle Gurgaon, Gurugram vs. Lummus Technology Heat Trasfer Bv- India Branch Office, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 8919/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Bhagwati Charan, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 44D

relation to the same, the assessee filed a letter date January 27, 2011 with the AO requesting for issuance of final assessment order and completion of assessment. 6. The AO passed the final assessment order along with the notice of demand, both received by the Appellant on October ... additions made by the AO in the final assessment order have been tabulated below: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Profits and, gains from business or 47,89,294 profession Additions Adjustment to the arm's length price on 1,33,07,224 provision as per the transfer pricing order under section 92CA

DCIT, International Taxation, Circle Gurgaon, Gurugram vs. Lummus Technology Heat Trasfer Bv- India Branch Office, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 8918/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Bhagwati Charan, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 44D

DCIT, International Taxation, Circle Gurgaon, Gurugram vs. Lummus Technology Heat Trasfer Bv- India Branch Office, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 8917/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Bhagwati Charan, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 44D

Teejay India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dc/Ac 4(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 152/VIZ/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri Darpan Kirpalani CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 92C

23/01/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER S. BALAKRISHNAN, Accountant Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order final assessment order of the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Officer, National e- Assessment Centre, Delhi in DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2020- 2 21/1031954419(1), dated ... Based on the Ld. TPO’s order in accordance with the directions issued by the Ld. DRP, the Ld. AO passed the final assessment order on 30/03/2021. Aggrieved by the final assessment order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The assessee raised

Lewek Altair Shipping Private Limited, Kakinada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Kakinada

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 147/VIZ/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.146/Viz/2021 & 147/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Lewek Altair Shipping Private Limited Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax D.No.3-16-193/1, Sri Vidya Colony Circle-1 Suryarao Peta, Kakinada Kakinada [Pan : Aabcl9766C] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Singh, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2023 O R D E R Per Shri S.Balakrishnan: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ao/Tpo/Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bengaluru(Drp In Short) U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since The Facts Are Identical, Both The Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard Together & Disposed Off In A Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & The Facts Are Extracted From I.T.A.No.146/Viz/2021 For The A.Y.2012-13. 2 Ita No.146/Viz/2021 & 147/Viz/2021, A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 Lewek Altair Shipping Private Ltd., Kakinada

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri MN Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

income u/s 37 of the Act and an amount of Rs.4,17,85,520/- towards ALP adjustment of charter charges. The Ld.AO passed final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act incorporating the directions of the Ld.DRP. 5. Aggrieved by the final assessment order of the Ld.AO

Lewek Altair Shipping Private Limited, Kakinada vs. Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kakinada

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 146/VIZ/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri MN Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Alcatel Lucent India Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 15, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 366/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ankul Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

said assessment order dated 26.03.2021 was 'Draft Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act, 1961" but it was final assessment order. Assessee objected that final assessment order was passed without giving the opportunity to file objections before DRP. Based on the arguments of the assessee and facts

Qualcomm India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 8177/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Date of hearing 21.10.2022 Date of pronouncement 19.01.2023 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against final assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) pertaining to assessment years

Ceva Logistics India P.Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8124/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 143

hearing: _ 21/10/2022 Date of Pronouncement: Jj^/01/2023 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the final assessment order dated 30.10.2018 passed under section 143 (3) r.w.s. 144 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act) pertaining to assessment year

Veolia India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 26(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6011/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Sh. Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2013-14 Veolia India Pvt Ltd. Acit B-1, Marble Arch, 9, Prithvi Vs Circle – 26 (1) Raj Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aabcv7389R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 92Section 92B

hearing: 21/10/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 19/01/2023 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the final assessment order dated 11.07.2017 passed under section 143 (3) r.w.s. 144 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act) pertaining to assessment year

Fil India Business & Research Services P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Dc, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1358/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargfil India Business & Vs. Dc Research Services P. Ltd., Circle – 7(1) Private Studio – New Delhi Ncr/Ac/Ps/00/010B, Ground Floor, Worldmark 1, Asset Area 11, Aerocity, Hospitality District, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi-110 002 Pan : Aabcf 1572 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. M. Gupta, Adv. Shri Rishabh Malhotra, A.R. & Shri Bhavya Gupta, C.A. Revenue By Shri Amaresh Singh, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Rs.1,83,56,916/- as per the provisions of section 115QA of the Act on 29th Sep, 2017. He submitted that in the final assessment order the credit for Rs.1,83,56,916/- has not been granted to the assessee and consequently an interest amount of Rs.1

Kony Inc., Usa vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1)(2), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 616/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

hearing 30.11.2022 Date of pronouncement 11.01.2023 & 616/Del/2021 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: Captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee assailing the final assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) pertaining to assessment years

Kony Inc., Usa vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1)(2), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 7462/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

Mitsubishi Electric Automotive, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7512/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 3(1)(iii)Section 43(5)

hearing 04.10.2022 Date of pronouncement 11 .01.2023 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the final assessment order dated 04.10.2017 passed under Section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income-Tax Act,1961 pertaining to 2 assessment year

Travelport International Operations Limited, Berkshire vs. ACIT Circle-3(1)(1) International Taxation-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1567/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Date of hearing 13.10.2022 Date of pronouncement 10.01.2023 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: The assessee has filed the captioned appeals 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

Travelport International Operations Limited, Berkshire vs. ACIT Circle-3(1)(1), International Taxation-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1566/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Xerox India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2014/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92F

ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM The present appeal is preferred by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2012-13 against the final assessment order dated 31/01/2017 passed by the DCIT, Circle-27 (2) New Delhi u/s 143(3) r/w Section 144C (4) of Income ... raised the following substantive grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned final assessment order passed by the Ld. AO/ Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Officer - 3(3)(2) ("Ld. TPO") is bad in law. 2. That

ACIT, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(2), New Delhi vs. Sabre Decision Technologies International Llc, Usa

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7354/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 44DSection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

business connection of SDT in India. 2.2. In this connection, AO has given a finding in beginning of para 10 of final assessment order that assessee itself claimed to have a PE in India and has offered the receipts to tax as business income. However, appellant countered this finding during ... assessed under ART 7 or Sec 44DA of the IT Act, as discussed by AO at para-10.1 of the final assessment order . 2.5. Revenue relies on the following judicial rulings in regard to existence of PE in the case of the applicant i.e. the ruling

Sabre Decision Technologies International Llc, New Delhi vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5782/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 44DSection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

Nan Lion Ship Management Llc, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) -3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1857/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1857/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Acit (Int. Tax) – 3(3)(1), Nan Lian Ship Management 1630, 16Th Floor, Air India Llc Building Nariman Point, C/O- Chamber 2 & 3, Cosmos बिधम/ Mumbai-400 021 Trade Place, Ground Floor, Vs. Khatu Building, Opp-Bse, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagcn0478E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Nishit Gandhi /Dhanlaxmi Iyer, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Das, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.11.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27.05.2022, Passed By Ld. Ao U/S 2

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Das

Section 144C(5)Section 2Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the final assessment order dated 27.05.2022, passed by Ld. AO u/s 2 I.T.A. No. 1857/Mum/2022 Nan Lian Ship Management LLC 143(3) r.w.s. 144C