← 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

Edelweiss Commodities Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7475/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

making various additions. The assessee has filed objections before learned DRP. After passing of the order by learned DRP, the Assessing Officer passed final assessment order on 30.10.2017. The assessee is aggrieved by the additions made by the Assessing Officer and accordingly preferred this appeal. 5. The first issue relates

M/S. Outsourcepartners International Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 35/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

Date of hearing : 20.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 24.06.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal is against the final assessment order of the ACIT, Circle 5(1)(2), Bangalore dated 24.10.2019 for the AY 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised 9 grounds of appeal

Huhtamaki Ppl Ltd.[As A Successor to Positive Packaging Industries Ltd], Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 14 (2)91), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8042/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.8042/Mum/2019 for A.Y.2015-16 preferred by the order against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 29/10/2019 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as Act, pursuant

Aker Powergas P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee and quash the assessment order

ITA 7211/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Aker Powergas P. Ltd. Income–Tax, Circle–15(1)(1), Powergas House, 83 I Think Room No.470, Aayakar Techno Campus Kanjur Marg Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Rd, (E), Mumbai–400 042 Mumbai–400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd1981E Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ms. Shraddha Jain, Ars Revenue By : Shri Vivek A Perampurna, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.0222

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Vivek A Perampurna, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14CSection 156Section 244ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

Powergas P. Ltd; A.Y. 2013–14 The learned DCIT erred in granting interest under section 244A only upto January 2017 even though the final assessment order was passed in October 2017. 4. Initiation of penalty proceedings The learned DCIT erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) against ... passed direction on 05/9/2017 and rejected the objections of the assessee. Consequently, on 27/10/2017, the learned assessing officer passed a final assessment order u/s 143 (3) read with Section 144C (13 ) of the Act wherein the Aker Powergas P. Ltd; A.Y. 2013–14 total income of the assessee was assessed

Emerson Network Power (India) P.Ltd, Thane vs. Addl CIT RG 1, Thane

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

ITA 1771/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2010-11
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

BALAGANESH (A.M): These appeals in ITA Nos.1975/Mum/2014 & 1771/Mum/2015 for A.Y.2009-10 & 2010-11 preferred by the order against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 17/01/2014 & 13/01/2015 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as Act, pursuant to the directions ... Thane (Addl. CIT) 9. 30/03/2013 Draft Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act passed by the Addl. CIT 17/01/2014 10 Final Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of . the Act passed by the JCIT 26/06/2019 11 Letter dated 26.06.2019 addressed to Assistant . Commissioner of Income

Emerson Network Power (India) P. Ltd, Thane vs. JCIT RG 1, Thane

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

ITA 1975/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2009-10
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

BALAGANESH (A.M): These appeals in ITA Nos.1975/Mum/2014 & 1771/Mum/2015 for A.Y.2009-10 & 2010-11 preferred by the order against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 17/01/2014 & 13/01/2015 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as Act, pursuant to the directions ... Thane (Addl. CIT) 9. 30/03/2013 Draft Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act passed by the Addl. CIT 17/01/2014 10 Final Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of . the Act passed by the JCIT 26/06/2019 11 Letter dated 26.06.2019 addressed to Assistant . Commissioner of Income

Vmware Software India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2127/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2127/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Vmware Software India The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Kalyani Magnum Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(2) V. Bangalore. Block-I, 3Rd Floor 165/2 Doraisanipalya, Iim Post Bannerghatta Road Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aaccv4573E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Suryanaranayana, Advocate Respondent By : Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit -Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 17.06.2022 Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2022 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 24.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Issues Raised In The Appeal Are As Follows:- (I) Validity Of The Impugned Final Assessment Order; (Ii) Transfer Pricing (Tp) Adjustment Of Rs.26,85,43,457 Made By The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) Towards The International Transactions Of Provision Of Contrct Software Development & Information Technology Enabled Services To The Assessee’S Associated Enterprises (Aes); (Iii) Addition Of Rs.7,62,39,388 Being The Alleged Suppressed Income Of The Assessee; & 2 It(Tp)A No.2127/Bang/2017. M/S.Vmware Software India Private Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.T.Suryanaranayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT -DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Hearing : 03.06.2022 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 24.01.2017 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment year is 2012-2013. 2. The issues raised ... appeal are as follows:- (i) Validity of the impugned final assessment order; (ii) Transfer pricing (TP) adjustment of Rs.26,85,43,457 made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) towards the international transactions of provision of contrct Software Development and Information Technology Enabled Services to the assessee’s Associated Enterprises

Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 179/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 40

Date of Pronouncement : 15.06.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order passed u/s 154 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] dated 23.2.2022 by JCIT Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore ... have erred in law and on facts in not examining the directions issued by the Hon'ble DRP and final assessment order of AY 2006-07 wherein after examining the facts, relief had been granted. 2.9. The learned AO and the Hon'ble DRP have erred

M/S. Citrix R & D India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2428/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Date of Pronouncement : 15.06.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore for the assessment 2015-16 dated 25.9.2019. The assessee has raised following

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

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

ITA 719/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

Date of hearing : 14.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 15.06.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal is against the final assessment order dated 31.1.2017 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] pursuant to the directions ... reduce the above expenses from the total turnover also. The grievance of the assessee is that the AO in the final assessment order has not complied with the directions of the DRP. 15. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

Tesco Bangalore Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2492/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)

Date of hearing : 13.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 15.06.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal is against the final assessment order dated 26.9.2017 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] pursuant to the directions

M/S. Himalaya Wellness Company (Formerly Known As the Himalaya Drug Company), Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 259/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.259/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Himalaya Wellness Company The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As The Himalaya Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bengaluru. Drug Company), Makali, Tumkur Road Bengaluru – 562 162. Pan : Aadft3025B. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT -DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 2(11)Section 92C

Hearing : 03.06.2022 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 17.02.2022 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment year is 2017-2018. 2. The brief facts ... No.259/Bang/2022 M/s.Himalaya Wellness Company. I.T.Act. The DRP dismissed the objection of the assessee. The A.O. considering the directions of the DRP, passed final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the I.T.Act dated 17.02.2022 and determined total income of Rs.414,86,12,580. Aggrieved by the final assessment order

Kodak India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 14 (2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed as 3

ITA 7842/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri RaunakFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 5(1)Section 5(2)Section 6

Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: By way of the present appeal the Appellant/Assessee has 1. challenged the final assessment order, dated 29.10.2019, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year

Ametek Instruments India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 432/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.432/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S. Ametek Instruments India The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. Benguluru. Plot No.1, Epip Industrial Area, Divyashree Nr Enclave, 4Th Floor Block A, Whitefield Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aahca2869B. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT -DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Hearing : 01.06.2022 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 Registry had noted ... delay of 111 days in filing this appeal. The final assessment order was received by the assessee on 30.03.2021 and appeal ought to have been filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the final assessment order. However, we notice that the Hon’ble Apex Court vide

Enstage Software Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 260/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.260/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Enstage Software Private Limited, Dcit (Exemptions), Vs. 16/1, Wings, 2Nd Floor, Circle – 2(1)(1), Cambridge Road, Halsuru, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 008. Pan : Aaace 9963 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)Section 92C

rejected the objections of the assessee and affirmed the adjustment made by the TPO. The AO passed the final assessment order in line with the directions of the DRP, in which the TP adjustment of Rs. 1,86,14,568/- was incorporated. 10. The assessee has raised several sub-grounds

Ibm India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 584/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 29Section 36(1)(vii)Section 50B

claimed provision for obsolescence amounting to Rs.4,96,52,000/- which was disallowed. Thus the total addition made by the Ld.AO in the final assessment order including the transfer pricing adjustment was Rs.819,41,87,426/-. Against this addition, an appeal has been preferred before this Tribunal which is pending

M/S Lenovo (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 35/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 92C

Date of hearing : 01.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 13.06.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant Member This appeal is against the final Assessment Order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4(1)(1) (the ‘AO’), Bengaluru under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144(13) of the Income ... gave partial relief to the assessee by modifying the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) of certain comparables. The AO passed the final Assessment Order giving effect to DRP directions. 4. The assessee raised several grounds and the issue wise summary of the same is as given below: (i) Ground 1 - General

M/S. Essity Hygiene and Health Ab, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, International Taxation-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 778/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.778/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2017-18) M/S. Essity Hygiene & Health Ab, C/O. Sudit K. Parekh & Co. Llp, Urmi Axis, 6Th Floor, Famous Studio Lane, Dr.E.Moses Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 011. Pan: Aatcs-0899-K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- (International Taxation)- 4(2)(1), 17Th Floor, Room No.1708, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Jain ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Milind S. Chavan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan
Section 143(3)

Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP vide directions dated 24/02/2021 rejected the objections raised by the assessee. The Assessing Officer consequently passed the final assessment order passed on the directions of the DRP and made aforesaid additions. 3 3.1 The ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that the assessee

M/S. Biocon Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1858/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 The Joint M/S. Biocon Ltd., Commissioner Of 20Th Km, Hosur Road, Income-Tax, Electronic City, Large Tax Payers Bangalore – 560 100. Unit [Ltu], Pan: Aaacb7461R Vs. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For A.Y. 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The ' Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals ["Cit(A)"] Dated March 28, 2018 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") For Ay 2010-11 To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Facts & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Scope Of Re-Assessment Proceedings

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha
Section 147Section 250Section 35

termination agreement for revocation of license for Oral Insulin and the board minutes to this effect were executed subsequent to passing of the final assessment order and accordingly erred in upholding the decision of the Learned AO that the additional evidence filed by the Appellant is an afterthought and consequently

M/S. Brillio Technologies Private Limited (Formerly Known As Collabera Solutions Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 128/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Naresh K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M S Nethrapal, Addl. DIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

similar market and there is no much difference as far as other criteria are concerned. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the final assessment order was passed, aggrieved with which, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Before us, the ld. AR submitted that the coordinate Bench