“final assessment order”

Pdr Solutions Fzc, Mumbai vs. Dy.Comm of Income Tax - Circle (Intl Tax) 3(3) (2), Mumbai

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

Order – 30/12/2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate impugned final assessment orders dated 31/05/2022 and 23/05/2022, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) by the Assessing Officer

Pdr Solutions Fzc, Mumbai vs. Dy.Comm of Income Tax - Circle (Intl Tax) 3(3) (2), Mumbai

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

Order – 30/12/2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate impugned final assessment orders dated 31/05/2022 and 23/05/2022, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) by the Assessing Officer

Edenred Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm of Income Tax International Taxation-2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

Date of Order – 29/12/2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned final assessment order dated 29/04/2022, passed under section 143(3) r/w 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) by the Assessing Officer (‘AO‟), pursuant ... total income of the assessee. The learned DRP rejected the objections filed by the assessee. In conformity, the AO passed the impugned final assessment order. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The issue arising in ground No. 1 is general in nature and therefore needs

Unilever Industries Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Range 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleunilever Industries Pvt Vs. Acit, Range – 1(3)(1) Ltd., Room No 504, 5 Floor, Unilever House, Bd Aayakar Bhavan, Sawant Marg, Chakala, M.K.Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai -400099. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu0791P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala & Mr.Hiten Chande.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Jayant Jhaveri.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) & U/Sec144C(13) R.W.S 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Order U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 26.02.2021.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal. Unilever Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. General: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao/ Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Transfer Pricing) -4(2)(2) ("Tpo") Subsequent To The Directions Issued By The Hon'Ble Drp Has Erred In Assessing The Total Income At Rs. 152,67,16,425 As Against Returned Income Of Rs. 116,80,08,280 Computed By The Appellant. 2. Parti-Transfer Pricing Adjustments: Transfer Pricing ('Tp') Adjustment On Account Of Benchmarking & Allocation Of Royalty In Respect Of Provision Of Scientific & Technical Services ('Contract R&D')

passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13)r.w.s 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act dated 30.03.2021. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal. 8. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the A.O./DRP

M/S. Partners Medical International Inc., Mumbai vs. The DCIT (Intl Tax) -3(3) (2), Mumbai

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

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

Date of Order – 29/12/2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned final assessment order dated 19/06/2020, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) r/w section 254 of the Income ... protect the interest of the Revenue. 6. In conformity with the directions issued by the learned DRP, the AO vide impugned final assessment order dated 19/06/2020, assessed the receipts both as royalty as well as FIS under the DTAA. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. During

M/S Piramal Enterprises Limiited, Mumbsi vs. Dy CIT(Appeal)-Range-8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Piramal Enterprises Ltd., Dy. Cit, Mumbai-8(1)(2), Or Piramal Tower, Agastya National Facelss Assessment Vs. Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Centre, Delhi, Kamani Junction, Kurla Room No. 624, 6Th Floor, (West), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400070. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacn 4538 P Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Ronak Doshi : Revenue By Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Cit-Dr & Mr. Samuel Pitta, Dr : Date Of Hearing 17/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 28/12/2022

Date of Hearing 17/11/2022 : Date of pronouncement 28/12/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee has been preferred against final assessment order dated 26.02.2022 passed by the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commission/Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (in short ‘the M/s Piramal Enterprises Ltd. 2 Ld. Assessing Officer ... Officer in the faceless process continued Officer in the faceless process continued with the the assessment proceedings and issu proceedings and issued impugned final assessment order assessing assessment order assessing total income of the assessee at ₹103,33,40,208/-. total income of the assessee at 3. Aggrieved, the assessee

Essar Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

Authorised Representative for the Appellant that the above transfer pricing adjustment proposed by the TPO, which in incorporated in the Final Assessment Order after the same was confirmed by the DRP, is in the nature of secondary adjustment. In effect the equity shares purchased by the Appellant have been treated

Marsh Mclennan Global Services India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Dept. Nationl E- Assessment Centre, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

Date of pronouncement of order : 27.12.2022 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal is directed against Final Assessment Order dated, 27.07.2022, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred ... deduction claimed by the assessee has to be allowed. This ground of objection is allowed for statistical purposes.” 4. Final Assessment Order was passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) and 144B of the Act on 27.07.2022 after making disallowance of INR 28,72,578/- being entire

Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(4), Mumbai

In the result assessment order dated 30

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 2142/मुं/ 2021 (िन.व. 2015-16) M/S. Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. Wagle Estate P.O., Lbs Marg Thane 400604 Pan: Aaocs7144Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3(4) World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400005 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Shri Hiten Chande "ितवाद" "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Vinod Tanwani सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 04.10.2022 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26.12.2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 30.09.2021 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’], For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Shri Nishant Thakkar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits At The Outset That He Would Be Making Submissions Only On The Jurisdictional Issue

submits that as per the provisions of Section 144C(13) of the Act, the Assessing Officer (AO) has to pass final assessment order within one month from the end of the month in which Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directions are received. In the instant case, the DRP directions u/s. 144C ... dated 18.03.2021, hence the due date to pass the final assessment order as per Section 144C(13) of the Act was 30.04.2021. Whereas, the final assessment order was passed by the AO on 30.09.2021. Hence, the assessment order was passed much beyond the period of limitation as specified in Section

Hitesh Jitendra Parikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-5(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

material were before the AO and he chooses not to deal with the several contentions raised by the Petitioner in his final assessment order, it cannot be said that he had not applied his mind to the material placed before him." 18. In view of what has been discussed above

Tata Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

determining total income at Rs.9302,36,17,248/- under normal provisions of the Act. The ld. AO in the said final assessment order had observed that since the tax computed under normal provisions of the Act is more than the tax computed u/s.115JB of the Act, the income is finally ... determined under normal provisions of the Act as the assessed income. This final assessment order framed pursuant to directions of the ld. DRP was sought to be revised by the ld. PCIT originally vide order u/s.263 of the Act on 22/03/2018 wherein the ld. AO was asked to determine

Tata Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-2, Mumbai

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

determining total income at Rs.9302,36,17,248/- under normal provisions of the Act. The ld. AO in the said final assessment order had observed that since the tax computed under normal provisions of the Act is more than the tax computed u/s.115JB of the Act, the income is finally ... determined under normal provisions of the Act as the assessed income. This final assessment order framed pursuant to directions of the ld. DRP was sought to be revised by the ld. PCIT originally vide order u/s.263 of the Act on 22/03/2018 wherein the ld. AO was asked to determine

Dboi Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, Nationa E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Deutsche India Pvt. Ltd [ Formerly Dboi Global Services Addl/Jt/Dy/Assit/Cit/Ito, Ltd] Block B-4, Level-6, National E-Assessment Vs. Nirlon Knowledge Park, Centre, New Delhi-110 003 Western Express Highway, Goregoan East, Mumbai-400 063 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd2953L

raised by the assessee were rejected except partial relief for verification. 08. Based on the direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel the final assessment order was passed wherein the normal income of the assessee was computed at ₹703,31,20,819/- as per normal computation. However, while working ... valid. He further submitted that such addition was not made in the draft assessment order but was made only in the final assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer. 013. The learned Authorized Representative also submitted a letter dated 26th May, 2021, wherein it was submitted that assessee

Edenred Sa, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15, and 2015–16 challenging the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (‘AO‘), pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘learned DRP’) Edenred ... Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), details of which are tabulated below:– Appeal Number Impugned Order under challenge before the Tribunal Final assessment order dated 30/12/2015, passed by the AO under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Act, pursuant ITA no.508/Mum./2016 to the directions dated 24/11/2015

Edenred Sa, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15, and 2015–16 challenging the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (‘AO‘), pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘learned DRP’) Edenred ... Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), details of which are tabulated below:– Appeal Number Impugned Order under challenge before the Tribunal Final assessment order dated 30/12/2015, passed by the AO under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Act, pursuant ITA no.508/Mum./2016 to the directions dated 24/11/2015

Edenred Sa, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15, and 2015–16 challenging the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (‘AO‘), pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘learned DRP’) Edenred ... Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), details of which are tabulated below:– Appeal Number Impugned Order under challenge before the Tribunal Final assessment order dated 30/12/2015, passed by the AO under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Act, pursuant ITA no.508/Mum./2016 to the directions dated 24/11/2015