“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

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

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 508/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

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

M/S. Mercator Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO by the asssessee are dismissed and the asseessee appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7278/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 7278/Mum/2017 (A.Y: 2010-11) & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 (2010-11) (Arising Out Of Ita No. 29/Mum/2018) Mercator Ltd Vs. Dcit 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Range 5(2) B Wing, Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Mumbai- 400021. Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Dy. Cit Vs. Mercator Lines Ltd Range 5(2)(2), Rno.571 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Aayakar Bhavan, Mk B Wing, Nariman Point Road, Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai - 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Nikhil Tiwari.Ar Revenue By : Mr.Krishnakumarmishra.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: 29/Mum/2018 & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 M/S. Mercator Ltd, Mumbai. The Cross Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Cit(A))-57, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act & The Assessee Has Filed The Cross Objection(Co) In The Revenue Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Nikhil Tiwari.ARFor Respondent: Mr.KrishnaKumarMishra.DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

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 and thus entire ... assessment of section 144C(1) of the Act are not applicable to the Appellant; is bad in law as provisions Final assessment order barred by limitation 33. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in not appreciating that the time limit prescribed

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 292/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

filed objections before the DRP whereby the TP adjustment was reduced to Rs.11,45,97,470. The assessee is in appeal against the final assessment order passed pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 3. Ground Nos.1 & 2 are general not warranting separate adjudication. Grounds 3 to 17 pertaining

M/S. Buro Happold Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT (Int Tax) -1(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 1690/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Us:-

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234B

BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No. 1690/Mum/2022 for A.Y.2019-20 preferred by the order against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as Act, pursuant to the directions of the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ... draft assessment order. 5. Pursuant to the directions of the ld. DRP, the ld. AO passed the final assessment order u/s 143(3) rws 144C(13) of the Act on 27/04/2022. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. At the outset, we find that the issue in dispute

Alcon Laboratories (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 224/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

conventions and sales promotion expenses. The assessee is in appeal IT(TP)A No.224/Bang/2021 Page 3 of 31 before the Tribunal against the final assessment order passed pursuant to the directions of the DRP. Adjustment on account of excessive AMP expenditure - Ground Nos.3 to 20 4. The TPO observed that

Microsemi India Private Limited (Now Merged With Microchip Technology (India) Private Limited), Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 211/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Date of hearing : 08.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 19.12.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal is against the final assessment order passed by the AO, National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated ... Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’). The DRP vide its directions dated 01.03.2021 rejected the objections of the Assessee. The Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order dated 07.04.2021 in which the TP adjustment originally made was sustained. Aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before this Hon’ble Tribunal

Sakshi Rajan Gupta, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 2095/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2095/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sakshi Rajan Gupta बिधम/ Acit Circle Int Tax- 6, Pankaj Mahal, 2Nd Floor, 1(3)(1) Vs. Jt Siphimalani Marg, Mumbai. Churchgate-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afjpg9115Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pritesh Joshi Revenue By: Shri Milind Chavan (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-42 Dated 09.06.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ao In Not Giving Proper Opportunity To The Assessee Before Passing The Assessment Order Wherein He Has Disallowed The Expenses Of Rs.28,79,641/- Claimed By The Assessee (Non-Resident).

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan (Sr. DR)

assessment order within the 30 days after recipient of it, the AO has 4 A.Y. 2018-19 Sakshi Rajan Gupta rightly passed the final assessment order. And according to Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has been given proper opportunity by AO before passing the assessment order. And therefore according

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited( Formerly Known As Symphoney Teleca Corporation India Private Limited), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 631/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.631/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Harman Connected Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2) Services Corporation India V. Bangalore. Private Limited (Formerly Symphony Telca Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.) No.3 & 3A, Eoiz Industrial Area, Survey No.85 & 86, Sadarmangala Village, K.R.Puram, Hobli Bangalore – 560 066 Pan : Aabcg5658E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2022 Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Revenue Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-2012. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956. The Assessee Is Engaged In Providing Software Development Services To Its Group Companies As Well As Third Parties. For The Assessment Year 2011-2012, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2011 Declaring Gross Total

For Appellant: Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92C

Hearing : 15.12.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : This appeal at the instance of the Revenue is directed against final assessment order dated 29.01.2016 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment year is 2011-2012. 2. The brief facts ... same and consequently the TP adjustment was revised to `Nil’ as against Rs.18,10,43,171 proposed by the TPO. The impugned final assessment order was passed on 29.01.2016 after considering DRP’s directions. The A.O. in the final assessment order, arrived at the total assessed income at Rs.12

Konecranes P.Ltd, Pune vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1497/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 1497/मुं/ 2017 ("न.व. 2012-13) Konecranes Private Limited Pan:Aaacw0328C(Pan Of Merged Entity) Pan Of Old Entity Aacck9930E Being Konecranes India Private Limited) 19, Level -2, Muttha Towers, Don Bosco Road,Yerwada, Dist. Pune – 411 006. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai. Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna With S/Shri Amol Mahajan & Hardik Nirmal ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Samrudhi Dhananjay Hande सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 31/01/2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act’], For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2 2. The Assessee Has Filed Additional Ground Of Appeal Vide Application Dated 29/08/2019 Assailing The Validity Of Assessment Order Passed In The Name Of A Non-Existing Entity. The Additional Ground Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna with S/Shri Amol Mahajan & Hardik NirmalFor Respondent: Ms. Samrudhi Dhananjay Hande

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer ('AO') erred in passing the draft assessment order dated 17 March 2016 and final assessment order dated 31 January 2017 in the name of 'Konecranes India Private Limited', an entity which is not in existence on the date of passing the impugned ... orders on account of its amalgamation with the Appellant. It is the humble prayer of the Appellant that the draft assessment order and final assessment order passed by Ld. AO be held as bad in law, illegal, null and void-ab- initio and as such deserve to be quashed

M/S Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payers Unit (Ltu) Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 3250/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.3250/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80G

Date of Pronouncement : 15.12.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against the final assessment order passed by DCIT LTC Circle-1 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C and section 154 of the Act dated 22.10.2018 for the assessment year

Oxford University Press Ai, Mumbai vs. DCIT International Taxation, Mumbai

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

ITA 2186/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 143(3)Section 194H

source was done and accordingly proceeded to disallow 30% of the said provision u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act in the final assessment order. In effect, the ld. AO made the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of sales promotion expenditure as under:- Actual payments

Hannover Millano Fairs Inida P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 10(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2065/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manuj SabharwalFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Date of pronouncement of order : 12.12.2022 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal is directed against Final Assessment Order dated, 25.01.2017, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred ... Business Services Limited as a comparable. However, the DRP declined to grant any other relief to the Appellant. As per directions of DRP, Final Assessment Order was passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Act on 25.01.2017 making transfer pricing addition

3A Composites India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appealof the assessee for A

ITA 1112/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Naniwadekar, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37(1)Section 92Section 92C

confirmed the adjustment at ₹1,35,64,604/- to the international transaction of payment of management services fee. 07. Based on this, the final assessment order was passed on 27th January, 2016, determining the total income of the assessee at ₹1,62,62,680/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order assessee

Siemens Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1954/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

12/12/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned final assessment order dated 25/01/2016, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), pursuant to the directions issued ... under section 144C(5) of the Act in the name of a non-existent entity is void-ab- initio also rendering the final assessment order dated 25 January 2016 to be illegal and bad in law. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute and/or modify in any manner

3A Composites India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appealof the assessee for A

ITA 1100/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Naniwadekar, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37(1)Section 92Section 92C

Tessitura Monti India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD) 8(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 799/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

12/12/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned final assessment order dated 11/11/2014, passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) pursuant to the directions ... order passed in the preceding year. In Tessitura Monti India Pvt. Ltd. IT(TP)A no799/Mum./2015 conformity, the AO passed the impugned final assessment order and rework the depreciation at Rs. 57,81,935. The AO also granted the relief of depreciation on the increased

Lintas India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

The appeal is allowed with the same directions

ITA 595/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Acit Cir 3(2)(1) Lintas India Private Limited It Office, R.No. 608, 6 Th 15Th Floor, Express Towers, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Lintas India Private Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit/Income- Limited 15Th Floor, Express Tax Officer, National Faceless Vs. Towers, Nariman Point, Appeal Centre, Delhi Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Assessee By : Shri Ajit Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2022

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain and SiddheshFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(10)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

case and in law, the learned AO erred in not following the mandatory provisions of section 144C (13) thereby rendering the Final Assessment order as time barred. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in not passing the Final ... erred in not considering the relief granted by the Hon'ble DRP in case of certain parties while passing the final assessment order.” 03. The brief fact of the case shows that the assessee is engaged in the business of advertising business and offer services related to advertising media planning

Wns Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, Nationa Faceless Assessment Centre, Dilhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1259/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalwns Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Pl 10, Gate No.4, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan: Aaacw2598L ...... Appellant Vs.. Addl./Jt/Dy./Acit/Ito/Nfac, Room No. 455, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Manish Kant Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Jasdeep Singh, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92B

permitting allowance of depreciation of Rs 14,50,931 on intangible assets acquired from WNS Global Services (UK) Limited in the final assessment order, the directions being binding on the learned AO by virtue of Section 144C(13) of the Act and binding favourable orders of this Hon'ble ITAT

Lintas India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed with the same directions

ITA 398/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain and SiddheshFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(10)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

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

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 842/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Bafna a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234Section 92C

SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present cross-appeals have been filed by the assessee and the Revenue challenging the impugned final assessment order dated 12/01/2016, UBS AG ITA no.842/Mum./2016 and ITA no. 1347/Mum/.2016 passed under section 144C(13) r/w section 143(3) of the Income ... bench of the Tribunal rendered in assessee’s own case accepted the objections filed by the assessee. In conformity, the AO vide impugned final assessment order assessed the capital receipts of Rs. 134,76,87,031 as a capital gain. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before