“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-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3022/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

pronouncement of order : 29.11.2022 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. These cross appeals are directed against the final Assessment Order dated, 26.02.2016 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter ITA. No. 2308 & 3022/Mum/2016 Assessment Year ... passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act. In conformity with the directions issued by the DRP, the Assessing Officer passed the Final Assessment Order on 26.02.2016 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Act after making transfer pricing adjustment

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2308/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

Shell Informaation Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 996/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 270A

आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.996/Mum/2022 for A.Y.2018-19 preferred by the order against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 16/03/2022 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as Act, pursuant ... technical services and not royalty both under the Act as well as under the DTAA. The ld. AO passed final assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144 C(13) of the Act on 16/03/2022 pursuant to the directions of the ld. DRP by treating the 7 M/s. Shell Information Technology International

Shellinformation Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2308/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 234DSection 270A

आदेश आदेश आदेश PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.2308/Mum/2022 for A.Y.2019-20 preferred by the order against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 20/07/2022 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as Act, pursuant to the directions ... technical services and not royalty both under the Act as well as under the DTAA. The ld. AO passed final assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144 C(13) of the Act on 16/03/2022 pursuant to the directions of the ld. DRP by treating the receipts of the assessee

Finastra Software Solutions (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 268/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 268/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 80G

disallowance of claim made under Section 80G of the Act was sustained. 5. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee has preferred the above appeal to this Hon’ble Tribunal. 3 IT(TP)A No. 268/Bang/2021 M/s. Finastra Software Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. 6. The issues arising for consideration

M/S. Sartorius Stedim India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1695/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1695/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sartorius Stedim India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 69/2 & 69/3, Commissioner Of Kunigal Road, Income Tax, Jakkasandra, Circle – 6(1)(1), Nelamangala, Vs. Bangalore. Bengaluru – 562 123. Pan: Aabcs7591Q Appellant Respondent : Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Assessee By Ca : Shri Venudhar Godesi, Revenue By Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28-10-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 20/05/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A) For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General Ground 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6 (Hereinafter Referred To As Cit(A)) To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law. Transfer Pricing - General Grounds 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao & Tpo In: A) Making A Reference For The Determination Of The Arm'S Length Price Of The International Transactions To The Tpo

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain

draft assessment order communicated to the Ld.AO regarding its preference to file an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Thus the Ld.AO passed the final assessment order on 20/05/2016. 3.2 Against this final assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) gave partial relief with respect

M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

Date of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of final assessment order dated 28/02/2017 passed by the Ld.ACIT, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore for A.Y. 2012-13 on following grounds of appeal: General and Legal Grounds ... expenditure incurred from 23.11.2011 to 31.3.2012 was claimed in the return of income and the same has been allowed in the draft and final assessment order, the assessee is also eligible for deduction under section 35(2AB) in respect of scientific research expenditure Page 10 IT(TP)A No. 718/Bang/2017

Jm Morgan Stanley Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7118/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. LalaFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(2)

25/11/2022 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 27/08/2010, passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Income ... under section 144C(5) of the Act, the learned DRP rejected the objections filed by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO passed the impugned final assessment order under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Grounds

Infinity Retail Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 10(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2297/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 40

disposed of by way of a common order. 2. We would first take up appeal for the Assessment Year 2009-10 directed against Final Assessment Order dated, 08.01.2014, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred ... Draft Assessment Order, dated 22.03.2013, before DRP which were disposed off by the DRP, vide order dated 26.12.2013. The Assessing Officer passed the Final Assessment Order, dated 08.01.2014, on the basis of the aforesaid order/directions of DRP making the disallowances/additions and computing the income of the Appellant as under: Profits

M/S. Trianz Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 322/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.322/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Trianz Holdings Private The Additional /Dy./ Limited No.165/2, 6Th Floor Addl/Jt.Commissioner Of V. Kalyani Magnum, Doraisani Palya Income-Tax, Nfac, Delhi Iim Post, Bannerghatta Road Bangalore – 560 076. Pan : Aafca8051P. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT –DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

Hearing : 16.11.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against final assessment order dated 28.02.2022 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment year is 2017-2018. 3. The brief facts ... assessee for higher profits u/s 10AA of the I.T.Act. 6. Pursuant to the DRP’s directions, the A.O. passed the impugned final assessment order, without giving effect to the directions of the DRP. The A.O. observed that the TPO has not provided the order giving effect to the directions

M/S United Spirits Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

In the result, ground 7 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3091/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.3091/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Joint Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Special Range-7 V. Bangalore. # 24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Counsel and Sri.Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT –DR

Section 115PSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

Hearing : 17.11.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against final assessment order dated 10.10.2018 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment year is 2014-2015. 2. The brief facts ... disallowances proposed in the draft assessment order, partial relief was granted by the DRP. 4. Pursuant to the DRP’s directions, the impugned final assessment order was passed on 10.10.2018. In the final assessment order, the total income assessed was Rs.1609,01,40,058 (business income as per the revised

Red Hat India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addll/Jt./Dy./ACIT/ ITO, NFAC -Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the present appeal by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1706/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rohit sutarFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

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

21/11/2022 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 28/02/2022, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) r/w section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), pursuant

Triumph International (India) Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 935/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar (CIT)–Ld. DR

Section 143(3)

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years (AYs) 2010-11 & 2011-12 arises out of separate final assessment orders passed by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO). The facts as well as issues are stated to be substantially the same in both the years. The appeal ... arises out of final assessment order dated 25.02.2015 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(4) r.w.s.144C pursuant to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel, Chennai [DRP] dated 22-12- 2014. The assessee carried out certain international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE) which were subjected to determination

Triumph International (India) Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 987/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar (CIT)–Ld. DR

Section 143(3)

M/S. Radisys India Limited (Formerly Known As Radisys India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 190/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahveer C Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Binod Kumar Singh, D.R

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

Pronouncement : 18.11.2022 O R D E R PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the final assessment order dated 28.2.2022 for the assessment year 2017-18 passed by the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi on following grounds of appeal:- IT(TP)A No.190/Bang/2022 ... Radisys India Limited, Bangalore Page 2 of 50 Ground No. 1: The learned Assessing Officer ("AO") has grossly erred in passing the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act beyond the time prescribed u/s 144C(13) and thereby rendering

United Arab Shipping Company Ltd.(Formerly Known As United Arab Shipping Company (S.A.G)), Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)- 4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2254/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2022AY 2018-2019

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234DSection 270ASection 90(2)

आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.2254/Mum/2022 for A.Y.2018-19 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 ... continuation of assessment proceeding as it is only the draft assessment order which is being challenged before it. The final assessment order is yet to be passed by the assessing officer. This view is fortified by the decision of the division bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay

Global E-Business Operations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 174/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Harinder Kumar, D.R

Section 144(3)Section 37Section 92C

Hearing : 10.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against final assessment order passed u/s 144(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] for the assessment year

Shell India Markets P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ltu-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 2340/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman आअसं.1492/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) M/S. Mondelez India Foods Private Limited, Mondelez House, Unit No.2001, 20Th Floor, Tower -3 (Wing C), India Bulls Finance Centre, Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan: Aaacc-0460-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range – 5 (1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं.1576/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2009-10) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2,Mumbai, World Trade Centre -1, Cuffe Parade, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai – 400 005 बनाम Vs. M/S. Shell India Markets Private Ltd. 1018, Maker Chambers –V, 10Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aaics-1404-P ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate with Shri Hiten ChandeFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha ,CIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 92C

expires on 31/03/2014. The draft assessment order was passed on 28/03/2014. The 5 ITA NO.1576/MUM/2015(A.Y.2009-10) DRP issued directions on 19/12/2014 and the final assessment order was passed on 29/01/2015. 7.2 The ld.Counsel for the assessee submits that as per provisions of section 92CA(3A) of the Act, where reference ... return of income, reference to the TPO, passing of the order by TPO, filing of objections before DRP and thereafter passing of final assessment order. The Hon’ble High Court in para- 30 of the judgment has explained as to how the period of sixty days as mentioned in section

DCIT, (Ltu)-2, Mumbai vs. Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 1576/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate with Shri Hiten ChandeFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha ,CIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 92C

Mondelez India Foods P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 1492/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate with Shri Hiten ChandeFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha ,CIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 92C