“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, New Delhi vs. M/S. Thomson Holding India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee as well as revenue stands dismissed

ITA 869/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Thomson Holding India Pvt. Ltd., C/O Robinson Air The Deputy Services Central Commissioner Of Income Warehousing Tax, Corporation, Circle – 16(1), Opp. Sbi Colony, New Delhi. Rana Pratap Bagh, Vs. G.T. Karnal Road, New Delhi – 110 033. Pan: Aacct0862G Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Technicolor India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Thomson The Deputy Holdings India Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner Of 306-308, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax, Bestech Chambers Circle – 16(1), Block B, Sushant Lok-I, New Delhi. Vs. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 009. Pan: Aacct0862G Appellant Respondent : Shri Mukesh Butani, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Revenue By Cit-Dr

For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Butani

Section 920(2)

ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of appeal". 2. At the outset, we note that the final assessment order has been passed based on the directions issued by DRP and the revenue has filed an appeal against the final assessment order. The issue raised

M/S. Thomson Holdings India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee as well as revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1911/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Butani

Section 920(2)

Ravikumar Tirupati Parthasarathy, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 676/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2019-20

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

Section 143(3)Section 144C

made towards capital gains. Aggrieved, the assessee filed its objections before the DRP, who confirmed the said addition. The AO in the final assessment order considered the correct indexation value of the year of acquisition and revised the addition to Rs.64,60,469. The assessee is in appeal before

M/S. Mindtree Limited (Successor in Interest to M/S. Aztecsoft Limited), Bengaluru vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on Ground nos

ITA 269/BANG/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

For Respondent: Shri Tata Krishna

Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 153Section 153(5)Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

Date of Pronouncement : 28-10-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against the final assessment order dated 22/04/2021 for A.Y. 2006-07 passed by the Ld.JCIT(OSD), Central Circle – 1(3), Bangalore on following grounds of appeal: “1. The Order of the Learned ... prejudicial to the interest of the Appellant are not justified in law and on facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The Final Assessment Order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer is non est and liable to be quashed as having not been passed in conformity with the directions

Keller Ground Engineering India Private Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

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

ITA 114/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadhri, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 156Section 92C

invalid in law and should be struck down as much. 2. The draft assessment order, which is in essence the final assessment order, given that the notice of demand had also been issued and penalty has also been initiated, is a patent violation of the provisions ... this order Demand Notice u/s.156 and calculation sheet are enclosed. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) initiated for the reasons discussed above.” Thereafter final assessment order was passed by the ACIT, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Act dated 12.01.2016 in consequence

Integra Software Services P. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Pondicherry

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 736/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj (CA) for Shri. S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (JCIT) / Shri. Kumar Ajeet Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 43(5)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 arises out of final assessment order dated 15.02.2017 passed by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(5) pursuant to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bengaluru (DRP) u/s 144C

Dover India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 460/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.460/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Dover India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Bagmane Laurel, 1St Floor, Circle – 2(1)(1), Block C, Bagmane Tech Park, Bengaluru. C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aaaci 3920 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Chavali Narayanan, Ca Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 29.03.2022 Of National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Providing Software Development Services (Swd Services), To Its Wholly Owned Holding Company. In Terms Of The Provisions Of Sec.92-A Of The Act, The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92ASection 92B(1)Section 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92F

guidance of the AO to enable him to complete the assessment after considering report of TPO. The AO passes a final assessment order on the basis of directions of the DRP. IT(TP)A No.460/Bang/2022 Page 4 of 18 3. The legislative intent in introducing the new transfer pricing legislation

Medreich Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 451/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 451/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Medreich Ltd., No. 12/8, Medreich The Assistant House, Commissioner Of Saraswati Ammal Income Tax, Street, Central Circle – Maruti Seva Nagar, 1(2), Vs. Bangalore – 560 033. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm1458Q Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Assessee By Khincha, Ca : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Ld.Acit, Central Circle – 1(2), Bangalore Dated 26/04/2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General Ground 1.1 The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore (`A0') Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act) In The Manner Passed

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

Date of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against the final assessment order passed by the Ld.ACIT, Central Circle – 1(2), Bangalore dated 26/04/2022 for A.Y. 2017-18 on following grounds of appeal: “General Ground 1.1 The learned Assistant Commissioner

Synamedia India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 350/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri

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

before the DRP. Based on directions of DRP, the TP adjustment was enhanced to Rs.40,32,45,354 and the AO passed the final assessment order in accordance with the directions of the DRP. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment ... delayed receivables 6,84,74,054 Total TP adjustment 40,32,45,354 15. Aggrieved by the TP adjustment made in the final assessment order, the Assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 16. With regard to the exclusion of Nihilent Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd. Aspire Systems India

Mfx Infotech Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 251/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 251/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144B

Date of hearing: 27/09/2022 Date of pronouncement: 21/10/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This appeal is against the final assessment order passed by National e-assessment centre dated 22.04.2021 passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income ... recomputed the TP adjustment in software segment as Rs.4,66,55,698 and interest on delayed receivable as Rs.28,18,152. In the final assessment order however the TP adjustment is retained as in the draft assessment order. In the detailed grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, the ground

M/.S Synamedia India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed in respect of the issues argued and considered hereinabove

ITA 2595/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2595/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd., Block 9A & 9B, The Deputy Pritech Park, Commissioner Of Survey No. 51-64/4, Income Tax, Sarjapur Outer Ring Circle – 6(1)(2), Road, Bengaluru. Vs. Bellandur Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan: Aaccn1140K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 29/10/2019 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate

Section 143(2)

Date of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against the final assessment order dated 29/10/2019 passed by the Ld.DCIT, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore for A.Y. 2014-15 on following grounds of appeal: Page ... directions, the Ld.AO passed the impugned order by making addition of Rs.145,67,01,060/- in the hands of the assessee. Against the final assessment order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that Ground nos. 1 and 17 are general

M/S. Marvell India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2577/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28

towards assets received free of cost / loan basis was confirmed by the DRP. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final assessment order passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 4. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR pressed for only

Lloyds Offshore Global Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 are partly allowed

ITA 194/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

Date of hearing : 12.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 20.10.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member These appeal is against the final assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] by DCIT, Circle 4(1)(1), Bangalore dated ... adjustment in the draft assessment order. Aggrieved, the Assessee filed its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP"). The AO passed the final assessment order incorporating a TP adjustment of Rs.3,80,67,944 after giving effect to the DRP directions. Aggrieved by the same and to the extent

M/S. Lloyds Offshore Global Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 are partly allowed

ITA 27/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

ACIT- CC- 3(3), Cr- 3, Mumb vs. M/S. Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd.(Erstwhile 'Bhadrawati Ispat & Energy Ltd'.), Mumbai

ITA 2561/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2561/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2560/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. Inocome Tax-Cc-3(3), (Erstwhile Bhadrawati Central Range-3, बनाम/ Ispat & Energy Ltd) R. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air Vs. 404, 4Th Floor, Hub Town India Building, Nariman Solaris, N. S. Phadke Point, Mumbai-400021 Marg, Mumbai-400 069 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcr1238F (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 697/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 698/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile Income Tax-Cc-3(3), Bhadrawati Ispat & Energy Central Range-3, बनाम/ Ltd) R. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Vs. 404, 4Th Floor, Hub Town Air India Building, Solaris, N. S. Phadke Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 069 Mumbai-400021 (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay V. DeshmukhFor Respondent: Shri Mani Jain & Prateek

Section 153ASection 68

proceeded to issue all the statutory notices in the name of the non-existent entity and has also passed the final assessment order in the name of the non-existent company. As such, the assessee has claimed that the assessment order in the name of a non-existent company ... once again in the name of Bhadrawati lspat & Energy Limited (now merged with Candor Renewable Energy Private Limited). The final assessment order has been passed by the AO on 30.12.2019 and the demand notice has been issued again in the name of Bhadrawati Ispat & Energy Limited,(merged with Reliable Record

M/S. the Mathworks, Inc, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation, Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 364/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.364/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2018-2019 M/S.The Mathworks, Inc. The Deputy Commissioner Of 3 Apple Hill Drive, Natick Income-Tax, V. Massachusetts 01760 International Taxation Cir.2(2) Bengaluru. United Sates Of America Pan : Aafct7230H. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Sumeet Kurana, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karhihalli, CIT -DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Hearing : 18.10.2022 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 12.03.2022 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment year is 2018-2019. 2. The brief facts ... International Taxation) v. Samsung Electronics Co.Ltd. reported in 2012) 345 ITRT 494 (Kar.). Pursuant to the DRP’s directions, the impugned final assessment order was passed on 12.03.2022. 3 IT(TP)A No.364/Bang/2022 M/s.The Mathworks Inc. 5. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee has filed the present appeal

Michael Page International Recruitment P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1323/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 144C(12)Section 144C(5)

ground nos. 1 to 3, which we will take up together, the assessee-appellant has raised the following grievances: Ground 1: Final assessment order and Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP) directions passed without application of mind Assessment Year: 2016-17 Page 2 of 11 On the facts and circumstances ... case and in law, the final assessment order dated April 03, 2021 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act) by the Ld. Assessing Officer ('Ld. AO') incorporating the directions dated March 23, 2021 passed by Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel DRP, is without

Keystone Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 951/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Sh. Anil. S. Sant, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

last submission on 16-02-2015. Before these two dates and after these two dates there was no communication by the assessee. Ultimately final assessment order was passed on 12-03-2015 which is almost providing the appropriate time (27 Days) to the assessee before passing the final assessment order

Merck Specialities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2056/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 4Section 5Section 92CSection 92C(1)

Order – 14/10/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the final assessment order dated 25/01/2016, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), for the assessment year ... Rs.16,47,997/- from the amount of TP adjustment computed on this issue.” 7. In conformity, the AO, inter-alia, passed the final assessment order dated 25/01/2016. Being aggrieved, the assessee in appeal before us. 8. During the course of hearing, learned Authorised Representative (‘learned AR’) submitted that similar issue

Ocwen Financial Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-5, Bangalore

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

ITA 342/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.342/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Ocwen Financial Solutions The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax V. Pritech Park, Survey No.51 To Special Range – 5 64/4, Block No.12, Unit 2, 5B & Bangalore. 6A Floors, Bellandur Village, Sarjapur Marathahalli Ring Road Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaaco3764E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ankur Pai & Sri. K.R.Vasudevan, Advocates Respondent By : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2022 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 30.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Providing It Enabled Services To Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc. Usvi. The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Ocwen Asia Holdings Limited, Mauritius. For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 29.11.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.93,31,44,800. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny

For Appellant: Sri.Ankur Pai & Sri. K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Hearing : 13.10.2022 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 30.03.2021 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment year is 2016-2017. 2. The brief facts ... instead of Rs.93,31,44,800 declared in the return of income filed by the assessee. 11. Aggrieved by the impugned final assessment order dated 30.03.2021, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed 16 grounds. However, during the course of hearing, the learned