“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

M/S. Iqvia Ag (Previously Known As 'Ims Ag', Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1203/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 9Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

Order – 11/05/2022 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 19.04.2021, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Act by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year ... protect the interest of the Revenue. 7. In conformity with the directions issued by the DRP, the Assessing Officer vide impugned final assessment order dated 19.04.2021, assessed subscription fees as Royalty under the provisions of the Act as well as DTAA. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

Frost & Sullivan (India) P.Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1124/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40

accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee. The Learned AR submitted that the Assessing Officer, while passing final assessment order, has accepted the fact that there was double disallowance as contended by the assessee. However, while giving relief, the AO has reduced the amount

Wills Towers Watson India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1140/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Towers Watson India Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of 511/512, Solitaire Corporate Park, Income Tax, Circle-11(3)-1, 151, Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Room No. 427, 4Th Floor Aayakar Andheri (East) , Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400093. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 2955 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Nikhil Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 92CSection 92C(4)

raised by the assessee, the Ld. DRP issued direction to the Assessing Officer. Pursuant to the direction, the Assessing Officer has passed this final assessment order, against which assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. We have heard the rival submissions ... that assessee selected Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method as the most appropriate method however same was rejected by the Ld. Assessing Officer. In final assessment order, the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) has been applied as most appropriate method for determining the Arm’s Length Price of the transaction

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 626/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.837/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.626/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.2031/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Bostik India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.124/4 & 124/4A, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(2) V. Bangalore. Kachanayakanahalli, Off: Hosur Road, Bommasandra Post, Anekal Taluk Bangalore – 560 099. Pan : Aabcb4627N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.C.J.Brito, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Three Final Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2011-2012, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014. Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Sri.C.J.Brito, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

George George K, JM : These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against three final assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment years are 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Common issues are involved in these appeals, hence, these appeals ... This relief was not given for the AY 2011-12). Consequent to the DRP’s directions, final assessment orders were passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the I.T.Act for assessment years 2011-2012 to 2013-2014. 12. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee

Bostik India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2031/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sri.C.J.Brito, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Bostik India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 837/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sri.C.J.Brito, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Lenovo (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 452/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.452/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, D.R

Section 143(3)

Date of Pronouncement : 05.05.2022 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the final assessment order dated 27.1.2017 passed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] for assessment year

Strides Pharma Science Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. The DCIT 15(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1450/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Us.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 92C

आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.1450/Mum/2014 for A.Y.2011-12 preferred by the order against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 30/06/2021 u/s.147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as Act, pursuant

Red Hat India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1456/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

BALAGANESH (A.M): These appeals in ITA Nos.1456/Mum/2017 & 7271/Mum/2017 for A.Yrs.2012-13 & 2013-14 preferred by the order against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 30/01/2017 & 26/10/2017 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as Act, pursuant to the directions

Joint CIT (OSD) Cent Cir. 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2155/MUM/2016[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 1996-97

Section 143(3)

page 26 to 58 of the paper book -1. 3. The amount of sales tax subsidy is based on the amount as per final assessment order in each of the years except in few cases the amount is as per return where the case was not selected for assessment. Please

Black Knight India Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on ground no

ITA 230/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 230/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Black Knight India Solutions Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant 6-3-1192-2-1, Htc Commissioner Of Towers, Kundanbagh, Income Tax, Begumpet, Circle – 1(1)(2), Hyderabad, Vs. Bangalore. Telangana – 500 016. Pan: Aaccl2956K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 26-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2021 Passed By The Ld.Ao In National E-Assessment For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Final Assessment Order Dated 30 March 2021 (And Received By The Appellant On 30 March 2021) Passed By The Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Income-Tax Officer, National E-Assessment

For Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram

Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Hearing : 26-04-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of the final assessment order dated 30.03.2021 passed by the Ld.AO in National e-assessment for assessment year 2016-17 on following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts ... circumstances of the case, the final assessment order dated 30 March 2021 (and received by the Appellant on 30 March 2021) passed by the Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income-tax Officer, National e-Assessment Page 2 of 7 IT(TP)A No. 230/Bang/2021 Centre, Delhi

M/S. Dmg Mori India Private Limited (Formerly Dmg Mori Seiki India Machines and Services Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 165/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 165/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Dmg Mori India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Dmg Mori Seiki India Machines & The Deputy Services Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner Of No. 3/1, 3Rd Main Road, Income Tax, Kiadb, Peenya, 1St Stage, Circle – 11(1), Ward No. 1, Hmt, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 058. Pan: Aabcd0003E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vikram, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 29/11/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Cit(Appeals) Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(I) Of The Act (Rs.2,76,24,000/-) 2.1. Disallowance U/S.40(A)(I) Unwarranted: The Cit(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Payments Made To M/S R.S Mail Limited , United Kingdom

For Appellant: Shri Vikram, Advocate

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 40

passed the draft assessment order on 11/03/2013. As the assessee did not file any objections before the DRP within the stipulated period, final assessment order was passed on 30/04/2013 wherein the Ld.AO, further made disallowance of Rs.2,76,24,000/-, made to non-resident for non-reduction

Alcon Laboratories India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 726/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 726/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Alcon Laboratories (India) The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of 11Th Floor, Rmz Azure, Income Tax, Bellary Road, Hebbal, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 092. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aacca3430F Appellant Respondent : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23/01/2017 Passed By The Ld.Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2012-13 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Alcon Laboratories (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Appellant”), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao”] In Pursuance To The Directions Issued By Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr

Section 143(3)Section 144C

Date of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against the final assessment order dated 23/01/2017 passed by the Ld.ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore for assessment year 2012-13 on following revised grounds of appeal: “Based on the facts ... expenditure added, the DRP confirmed the view of the Ld.AO/TPO. 5. On receipt of the DRP order, the Ld.AO passed the final assessment order making addition of Rs.36,53,34,638/- in the hands of the assessee. Against the impugned assessment order, the assessee is in appeal before this

M/S Adc India Communications Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

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

ITA 79/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.41/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Adc India Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) Communications Limited, V. Bangalore. 485/8A & 8B, 14Th Cross, 4Th Phase, P.B.No.8512, Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 058. Pan : Aaack6553H. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.79/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Adc India Communications The Assistant Commissioner Limited, 485/8A & 8B, 14Th Cross, Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. 4Th Phase, P.B.No.8512, Peenya Bangalore. Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 058. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Rajesh Kumar Jha, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.Aliasagar Rampurawala, Ca Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.04.2022

For Appellant: Sri.Aliasagar Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 9

Pronouncement : 29.04.2022 Date of Hearing : 13.04.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : These cross appeals are directed against final assessment order dated 26.11.2015, passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment year is 2011- 2012. We shall first adjudicate the Revenue

M/S on Mobile Global Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 535/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 144C

Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present cross appeals filed by assessee as well as revenue against the final assessment order dated the 25/01/2016 passed under Page 2 of 9 IT(TP)A Nos. 523 & 535/Bang/2016 section 143(3) read with section 144C

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Onmobile Global Ltd., Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 523/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 144C

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Adc India Communications Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 41/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sri.Aliasagar Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 9

Novell Software Development (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 319/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

Assessee’s Appeal “The Appellant submits as under: 1. Assessment and reference to Transfer Pricing Officer are bad in law a) That the final assessment order passed by the Respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the AO') is bad in law and on facts, and has been passed in violation ... principles of natural justice. b) That, without prejudice to the above, the final assessment order passed by the AO is bad in law to the Page 3 of 53 IT(TP)A Nos. 280 & 319/Bang/2016 extent the AO did not issue to the Appellant a show cause notice

ITO Ward - 5(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Novell Software Development (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 280/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-10(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 7116/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd. Income Tax, 10(1)(1), Chakala, Andheri (E), R.No.209, Vs. Mumbai-400 009 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach0964P

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92(2)Section 92BSection 92C

prayed may be considered independently without prejudice to one another. General 1. The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in passing the final assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act dated 30.10.2017 determining the total income of the Appellant