← All Phrases

“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
71
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
50
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
49
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

Vena Energy Fatanpur Power Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 196/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

Date of Pronouncement : 07.07.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member These are appeals by four different assessees against the final assessment order passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the IT(TP)A Nos.195 to 198/Bang/2021 Page 2 of 26 Income ... reduced the amount of disallowance to Rs.9,45,270. In pursuance of the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. TP adjustment towards interest on issue of NCD 5. During the year under consideration the assessee made

Vena Energy Kn Wind Power Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 195/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

Date of Pronouncement : 07.07.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member These are appeals by four different assessees against the final assessment order passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the IT(TP)A Nos.195 to 198/Bang/2021 Page 2 of 26 Income ... reduced the amount of disallowance to Rs.9,45,270. In pursuance of the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. TP adjustment towards interest on issue of NCD 5. During the year under consideration the assessee made

M.S Scania Cv Ab, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3432/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jul 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 192Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

Date of Pronouncement : 06-07-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by the assessee against the final assessment order dated 25/10/2018 passed by Ld.DCIT(IT), Circle – 2(1), Bangalore for A.Y. 2014-15 on following grounds of appeal. “Based on the facts and circumstances

DCIT Circle- 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 928/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamar, D.R
Section 145Section 14ASection 92CSection 92F

served upon the assessee but no objections have been filed on behalf of the assessee and as such draft order is treated as final assessment order. Assessing Officer (AO) after making different additions/disallowances framed the assessment in all the aforesaid appeals under section 143(3) read with section 144C

ACIT, Circle - 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 3299/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamar, D.R
Section 145Section 14ASection 92CSection 92F

served upon the assessee but no objections have been filed on behalf of the assessee and as such draft order is treated as final assessment order. Assessing Officer (AO) after making different additions/disallowances framed the assessment in all the aforesaid appeals under section 143(3) read with section 144C

ACIT, Circle - 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2779/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamar, D.R
Section 145Section 14ASection 92CSection 92F

served upon the assessee but no objections have been filed on behalf of the assessee and as such draft order is treated as final assessment order. Assessing Officer (AO) after making different additions/disallowances framed the assessment in all the aforesaid appeals under section 143(3) read with section 144C

Owens Corning Inc., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT(International Tax)Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 741/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla a/wFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234BSection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

Order – 04/07/2022 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 05/03/2021 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), for the assessment year ... assessee for assessment year 2012–13, rejected the objections filed by the assessee on this issue. The Assessing Officer, inter-alia, passed the final assessment order dated 05/03/2021 in Owens Corning Inc. ITA No.741/Mum./2021 conformity with the directions issued by learned DRP. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before

M Pallonji Shipping P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5875/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem.Pallonji Shipping Pvt Vs. Dcit – 5(2)(2) Ltd.46A Veetrag Mumbai Chambers, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecm4615L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dr.K. Shivaram & Shri Rahul Hakani.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Vatslaaa Jha.Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Dr.K. Shivaram, &For Respondent: Ms.Vatslaaa Jha.CIT.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Pallonji Shipping Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act dated 31.08.2017. 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 has restricted his arguments

Sandisk India Device Design Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-6, Bangalore

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

ITA 288/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 288/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sandisk India Device Design Centre Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 143/1, Amani Bellandur Khane Village, The Joint Prestige Excelsior, Commissioner Of Prestige Tech Park, Income-Tax Marathalli – Sarjapur Outer (Osd), Ring Road, Circle 6 (1)(1), Vs. Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaics9204M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi On 30.04.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CA
Section 92C(3)Section 92D

Hearing : 25-05-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against final assessment order passed by National e-assessment centre, New Delhi on 30.04.2021 for A.Y. 2016-17 on following grounds of appeal: “The grounds stated hereunder ... margin of Nihilent Limited, Aspire Systems (India) Private Limited, Infosys Limited, Thirdware Solution Limited and Cybage Software Private Limited while passing the final assessment order. 10.3. The Hon'ble DRP erred in upholding the action of the Ld. TPO/ NeAC in accepting Infosys Limited, Nihilent Limited and Larsen and Toubro

M/S Harman International (India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 49/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.49/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Harman Connected Services Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation India Private Limited, Income Tax, 4A, Jupiter, Prestige Technology Park, Circle - 3(1)(2), Sarjapur, Marathahalli Road, Bengaluru. Kadubeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan: Aacch 1585 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

marginal relief. IT(TP)A No. 49/Bang/2019 Page 3 of 31 7. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order dated 30.10.2018 in which the TP adjustment was reworked to Rs. 16,75,21,761/-. The other additions made on corporate tax were sustained ... Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee has filed the appeal before this Hon’ble Tribunal. We will deal with the addition made on account of determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) in the SWD services segment, trading segment and thereafter the Corporate Tax issues raised

M/S. Bateman Engineering (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1139/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Years : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R. Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 154Section 92C

dated 24.12.2011 to complete the assessment as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. Accordingly, the AO passed the final assessment order on 17.1.2012. In pursuant to a rectification application u/s.154 made by the assessee, the TPO passed a rectification order u/s. 92CA(5) r.w.s ... engineering design services availed by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) raising grounds pertaining to the final assessment order as well as fresh adjustments made by the TPO in the rectification order u/s. 92CA r.w.s. 154 of the Act. 6. The CIT(Appeals

M/S. Xerox Business Services India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2595/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14
For Respondent: Shri Nageshwar Rao
Section 133(6)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

Date of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by the assessee against the final assessment order dated 27/09/2017 passed by the Ld.DCIT Circle7(1)(2), Bangalore, for assessment year 2013-14. Page 2 of 5 IT(TP)A No. 2595/Bang/2017

Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 852/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

Thereafter, the assessee intimated the AO opting to file an appeal with CIT(Appeals), pursuant to which the AO passed the final assessment order dated 22.4.2013 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs 2,843,922,040. 5. During the course of the appeal proceedings before

Joint Commisioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Texas Instruments India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 831/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

Thereafter, the assessee intimated the AO opting to file an appeal with CIT(Appeals), pursuant to which the AO passed the final assessment order dated 22.4.2013 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs 2,843,922,040. 5. During the course of the appeal proceedings before

M/S Tokai Rika Minda India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Cicle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1513/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

Date of Pronouncement : 29.06.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against the final assessment order dated 28.4.2017 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act passed in consequence to the direction of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) dated ... been made in respect of transactions with the Associated Enterprise. 3. The Ld. DRP not given certain relief to the assessee. Thus, in final assessment order, TPO made adjustment of Rs.5,67,47,747/-. Against this assessee is in appeal before us by way of above ground. 4. Ground Nos.1

M/S. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cur 7(1)

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

ITA 769/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanpiramal Enterprises Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 7(1) (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan Piramal Healthcare Ltd) Mumbai – 400020. (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Circle – 7(1) Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd Aayakar Bhyavan (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020. Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Assessee By : Mr.Ronak Doshi & Ms.Manshi Padhiyar.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N.Kabra.Dr

For Appellant: Mr.Ronak Doshi &For Respondent: Mr.S.N.Kabra.DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 32Section 35Section 80

assessee in respect of BMIL, therefore, there was no reason for the A.O to have not followed such directions while passing the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13), dated 28.01.2014. In terms of our aforesaid observations, we direct the A.O to allow the assesses claim of depreciation

M/S Rittal India Pvt Ltd, Doddaballapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2868/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Ramasubramaniam, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

ld.counsel for the assessee has filed a memo dated 28/5/2022 in response to the aforesaid letter of the JCIT (OSD) dated 18/3/2022 enclosing Final Assessment order and ITAT order for AY 2011-12, to substantiate the Assessee’s claim that no TP adjustment of Rs. 10 crore or more

Morgan Stanley Advantage Services P Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (Apeals), Nationa Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1083/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalmorgan Stanley Advantage Services Pvt. Ltd. Athena Building No.5, Sector-30, Mindspace, Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400090 Pan: Aaeca3400B ...... Appellant Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Sunil M. Lala Respondent By : Sh. Amol B. Kirtane Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre (Nfac), Delhi. [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Vide Order Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Disallowance Of Expenditure Claimed Towards Employee Stock Option Scheme (Esop) Under Section 37(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act) Amounting To Rs 1,84,75,816. In This Regard, The Learned Cit(A)/ Learned Assessing Officer Has, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Erred On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil M. LalaFor Respondent: Sh. Amol B. Kirtane
Section 143(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 30Section 37(1)

proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the disallowance made in respect of expenditure claimed towards ESOP cost in the Final Assessment Order. Ground 3: Erroneously dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20 [now migrated to the Commissioner

M/S Greatship (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Range 5 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed

ITA 7001/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri M M GolvalaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

under Section 144C(5) of the Act vide order, dated 13.08.2019, and on the basis 6 Assessment Year: 2015-16 of the same final assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer on 20.09.2019 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Act determining total income

M/S. Walvoil Fluid Power (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1839/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

additions made by the AO/TPO. Consequently, the AO passed assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Act. Aggrieved by the final assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 05.08.2016 in IT(TP)A No.1075/Bang/2011 set aside all the grounds including