“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

Gmr Infrastructure Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 1599/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CA

Section 14ASection 201Section 234B

such a claim before the Assessing Officer nor the Assessing Officer is empowered to entertain such claim. Pursuant to the DRP’s direction, final assessment order was passed on 14.10.2019. 3.2. Aggrieved, the assessee has raised this issue before the Tribunal. The learned AR reiterated the submissions made before

ACIT 12(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley Advantage Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 1215/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.1215/Mum/2016 & CO No.55/Mum/2016 for A.Y.2011-12 preferred by the order against the final assessment order 2 ITA No.1215/Mum/2016 & CO No.55/Mum/2016 M/s. Morgan Stanley Advantage Services Pvt. Ltd., passed by the Assessing Officer dated 29/01/2016 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income

Abacus Internaitional Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2352/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

draft assessment order, the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.9,56,05,739/-. Pursuant to the directions of the ld. DRP, final assessment order dated 23/08/2010 was passed wherein total income of the assessee was determined at Rs.6,92,17,625/-. The following additions were finally made ... final assessment order dated 23/08/2010:- (i) Income attributable to PE – Rs.5,32,85,612/- (ii) Income of Reimbursement - Rs. 29,32,013/- (iii) TP adjustment - Rs.1,30,00,000/- 3.2. The ld. AO observed that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal had deleted the addition made on account

M/S. Emerson Automation Solutions Intelligent Platforms Private Limited (Formerly M/S Ge Intelligent Platforms Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, grounds 10 and 11 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 356/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.356/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Emerson Automation The Assistant Commissioner Solutions Intelligent Platforms Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2) V. Bangalore. Private Limited (Formerly Known As M/S.Ge Intelligent Platforms Private Limited) Velankani Tech Park, Building 9 First Floor, 43 Hosur Road Bangalore 560 100 Pan : Aaacg7573K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Sri.Sachit Jolly & Aayush Nagpal, Advocates Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 24.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2022 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 30.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Process Industrial Automation That Includes Manufacture & Trading Of Automation Products, Solutions & Services For The Process Controlled Application. For The Relevant Assessment Year The Return Of Income Was Filed By The Assessee On 29.11.2013 Declaring Total Loss Of Rs.1,06,46,560. The 2 It(Tp)A No.356/Bang/2018 M/S.Emerson Automation Solutions Intelligent Platforms Pvt.Ltd Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny By Issuance Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transactions Undertaken By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 31.10.2016 Passed U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act Proposed The Following Adjustments:- Segment Value Of Adjustment (Rs.) Manufacturing Segment 4,43,23,760 Hq Charges 86,39,654 Total 5,37,40,836

For Appellant: S/Sri.Sachit Jolly & Aayush Nagpal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 71Section 92C

Hearing : 17.05.2022 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 30.10.2017 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment year is 2013-2014. 2. The brief facts ... primarily upholding the TP adjustment proposed by the TPO and the draft assessment. Pursuant to the DRP’s directions, the A.O. issued final assessment order dated 30.10.2017. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed revised ground

M/S. Ge Be Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2615/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George K. George

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly &For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 92D

case of the Appellant, however, against the draft assessment order, the objections were filed before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP"), whereafter the final assessment order has been passed, which is the subject matter of the present appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal. From that perspective, clearly this Hon'ble Tribunal

M/S. Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2556/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, D.R

Section 143(3)

treatment systems and solutions etc. It is also engaged in trading of servers, routers, networking equipments, spare parts, etc. The assessing officer passed final assessment order on 31-10-2019 in conformity with the directions given Ld DRP. The assessee is aggrieved by the order so passed ... Kerala High Court in the case of Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. 344 ITR 259. The A.O. while passing the final assessment order, duly considered the above said 3 IT(TP)A No.2556/Bang/2019 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 40 of 85 decisions and confirmed the disallowance originally made in the draft assessment

M/S Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 705/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.705/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, M/S. Harman Connected Services Vs. Circle – 3(1)(2), Corporation India Private Limited, Bengaluru. (Formerly Known Symphony Teleca Corporation India Private Limited), Plot No.3 & 3A, Eoiz Industrial Area, Sy. No.85 & 86, Sadaramangala Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan: Aabcg 5658 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2022 O R D E R Per B. R. Baskaran:

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40Section 40A

directed the AO to verify the claim of the assessee and allow set off as per law. In the final assessment order, the AO did not examine the claim and did not allow set off. IT(TP)A No.705/Bang/2016 Page 7 of 8 9.1 We heard the parties on this

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

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

ITA 602/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: PendingITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.602/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tesco Bengaluru Private Limited, Dcit, Vs. (Earlier Known As Tesco Hindustan Service Circle – 7(1)(1), Centre Private Limited), Bengaluru. No.81 & 82, Tesco H S C, Epip Area, White Field, Bengaluru-560 066. Pan : Aabct 8915 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2022 O R D E R Per B. R. Baskaran:

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 234C

directed the Assessing officer to verify the claim in accordance with law. The AO retained the disallowance in the final assessment order after examining the claim. 8.1 The Ld A.R submitted that the yearend provision has been reversed in the subsequent year and further the TDS has been deducted when

Dow Chemicals International Pvt Ltd. As Successor of Rohm and Haas (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 14 (1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7936/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dow Chemical International Private Income Tax Officer-14(1)(3), Limited As Successor Of Rohm & Hass Room No. 458, 4Th Floor, (India) Private Limited, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Godrej It Park-P2, 1St Floor Block B, 02, Mumbai-400020. Lbs Road, Godrej Business District, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan No. Aaacr 2855 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan R. Vora/For Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DR

Section 92C

Date of Hearing : 23/03/2022 Date of pronouncement : 19/05/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against final assessment order dated 30/10/2019, passed by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward 14(1)(3), Mumbai [hereinafter shall be referred as ‘the Ld. Assessing Dow Chemical International Private ... adjustment and addition treating compensation as revenue receipt. Pursuant to the direction of the Ld. DRP, the Ld. Assessing Officer passed the impugned final assessment order in terms of section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act on 30/10/2019, wherein he made addition for transfer pricing adjustment

Fremantle India Television Productions Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 16 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7894/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Fremantle India Television The Asst. Commissioner Of Productions Private Limited, Income-Tax, Circle 16(1), 109, Shalimar Morya Park, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Plot B-2, Off New Link Road, Mumbai-400020. Oshiwara, Andheri West, Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aaacf 0436 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. M.P. Lohia/ Mr. Hemen Chadariya, Ars Revenue By : Dr. Satya Pinisetty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/05/2022

For Appellant: Mr. M.P. Lohia/For Respondent: Dr. Satya Pinisetty, CIT-DR

Section 271

Date of Hearing : 16/03/2022 Date of pronouncement : 19/05/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against final assessment order dated 31/10/2019 passed by the Ld. Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 16(1), Mumbai, pursuant to the direction of the Fremantle India Television Productions

Emerson Electric Company (India)Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(2) (1) Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Mumbai

ITA 933/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: ShriDhanesh Bafna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra, D.R

Section 144Section 153Section 92C

illegal and void on account of being barred by limitation in terms of section 92CA(3A) r.w.s 153 of the Act, consequently, the final assessment order dated 30 March 2021 is also barred by limitation as prescribed under section 153 of the Act, thus making the final assessment order illegal ... null and void and liable to be quashed. The Appellant prays that the TP order, draft assessment order and the final assessment order are bad in law, null and void and liable to be quashed. 3. Engineering and related services (Engineering) segment - INK 7,64,86,079 3 M/s. Emerson

M/S. Intgreon Managed Solutions (India)P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Addl/Jt/Cy /CIT/Asstt./ITO-National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1023/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2015-16

Section 147Section 234B

given. Accordingly, the Ld DRP rejected the objections made by the assessee to the proposed addition. Accordingly, the AO passed the final assessment order making the above said addition of RS.1,13,74,847/-. 8. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has actually booked the revenue at Rs.82

Blackstone Fp Capital Partners Mauritius V Ltd., Mauritius vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation) Circle-1(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 981/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 154

noticed that various scanned documents mentioned and incorporated in the draft assessment order dated 28.12.2019 could not be incorporated in the final assessment order….”. 2. Learned representatives, however, fairly accept that the core issue in appeal is whether the authorities below were justified in declining the treaty protection, under article

Blackstone Fp Capital Partners Mauritius V Ltd., Mauritius vs. DCIT Intl Tax Cir.1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1725/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 154

Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu)-Circle, Mumbai

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

ITA 30/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Shipping Corporation Of India Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax (L.T.U.)-Circle-2, 245, Shipping House, Madam Cama Vs. 29Th Floor, Centre-2, World Road, Nariman Point, Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400006. Pan No. Aaact 1524 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vinay Deshmane, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Vijay Shankar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 115VSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253(1)Section 28

Date of Hearing : 28/04/2022 Date of pronouncement : 13/05/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against final assessment order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (Large Taxpayer Unit), Mumbai (hereinafter referred as ‘the Assessing Officer’) for assessment year ... assessment order, the assessee filed objection before the Ld. DRP. Pursuant to the direction of the Ld. DRP, the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order on 30.09.2018. 4.1 Aggrieved with the same, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribuanl raising the ground as reproduced above. The Shipping Corporation

M/S Aci Worldwide Solutions Private Ltd., Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground 11 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 106/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.106/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Aci Worldwide Solutions The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. Bangalore. No.9, Salarpuria Cambridge Mall Bangalore – 560 008. Pan : Aaacv7566R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 13.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 12.05.2022 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 31.01.2011 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Software Development Services & Sales & Marketing Support Services To Its Associated Enterprises (Aes). The Services Are Provided On Cost Plus Basis. The Assessee Is Also Engaged In Software Distribution Activities. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Reference Was Made To The Tpo To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of International Transactions Undertaken By The Assessee With Its Aes. The 2 It(Tp)A No.106/Bang/2022. M/S.Aci Worldwide Solutions Private Limited. Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.01.2021 U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act, Proposed The Following Tp Adjustments:-

For Appellant: Sri.Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Hearing : 12.05.2022 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 31.01.2011 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act. The relevant assessment year ... Software Distribution Determined the segment transaction at ALP and Nil no adjustment made thereon. 2.2 Post the above order, the AO passed the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) r.w.s. 144B of the I.T.Act dated 31.01.2022. In the order, the AO has retained same TP adjustment

M/S. Ocwen Financial Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 5, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2411/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2411/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ocwen Financial Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Pritech Park, Block 12, The Joint Commissioner Unit 2, 5B & 6A Floors, Of Income-Tax, Bellandur Village, Special Range-5, Sarjapur Marathahalli Bangalore. Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaaco3764E Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Vasudevan & Assessee By Ms. Rashmi, Advocates : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24/09/2019 Passed By The Ld.Jcit, Special Range-5, Bangalore Under Section 143 (3) R.W.S 144C (13) Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. Transfer Pricing The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan &

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 92C

Date of Pronouncement : 13-05-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against the final assessment order dated 24/09/2019 passed by the Ld.JCIT, Special Range-5, Bangalore under section 143 (3) r.w.s 144C (13) of the Act, for Assessment Year 2015-16 on following ... assessee. Page 8 of 24 IT(TP)A No. 2411/Bang/2019 4. On receipt of the DRP directions, the Ld.AO passed final assessment order by making addition to the international transaction for ITeS segment at ₹14,57,03,780/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld.AO, the assessee

Capgemini India P.Ltd, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT Cir 10(2), Mumbai

In the result ground number 12 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

ITA 4727/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, Income Tax, Army & Navy Bldg, Circle 10(2), 3Rd Floor, R. No. 475, Vs. 148, M.G. Road, Ayakar Bhavan, Fort, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaack2632B Appellant By : Shri M M Golvala, Ar Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri M M Golvala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 1O

Assessee did not file any objection before the learned DRP against the draft assessment order and therefore final assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act was passed on 26th May, 2014. Learned Assessing Officer over and above the transfer pricing adjustment made following

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

In the result, grounds 20 to 23 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 294/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkaihalli, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 40

Hearing : 10.05.2022 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 30.04.2021 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 ... vide its directions dated 25.03.2021, partly allowed the objection raised by the assessee. Pursuant ot the directions of the DRP, final assessment order was passed dated 30.04.2021 in which the TP adjustment was worked out to Rs.4,30,60,301 and adjustment pertaining to the Corporate Tax remained unchanged

M/S. Shell Information Technology International B.V., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1245/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, CIT–DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2(24)Section 234B

Order – 11/05/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the final assessment order dated 30.04.2021, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the Assessing Officer ... learned DRP further held that IT support services could not fall under “Royalty” in the instant case. 6. The Assessing Officer vide impugned final assessment order dated 30.04.2021, inter–alia, treated the income from IT support services as Fee for Technical Services / Royalty under the DTAA. Being aggrieved, the assessee