“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. United Spirits Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2701/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) 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 Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(iii)

Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against final assessment order dated 12.10.2017 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment year is 2013-2014. 2. The brief facts ... vide its directions dated 18th September, 2017 disposed of the assessee’s objections. Pursuant to the DRP’s directions, the AO passed the final assessment order dated 12.10.2017. In the final assessment order, the learned AO made the following adjustments / additions:- Sl. Nature of disallowance Amount (Rs.) No. A. Transfer

Newedge Broker India Pvt Ltd. Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 606/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

referred to as ld. AO). IT(TP)A No.1254/Mum/2016 (A.Y.2011-12) This appeal in ITA No.1254/Mum/2016 for A.Y.2011-12 preferred by the order against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 31/12/2015 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as Act, pursuant

Newedge Broker India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 605/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Iss Facility Services India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 10(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 411/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.411/मुं/2018 ("न. व. 2013-14) Iss Facility Services India Private Limited The Qube, B 401/404 & A 402 Behind Taj Stats, Village Marol Sahar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400 059 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aabc13815M बनाम/Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax- 10(1)(2) Room No. 14, 20Th Floor, Air India Building, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021

For Appellant: Shri. M.P. Lohia with Shri. Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

amount of adjustment to Rs. 3,66,71,462/- and same was, inter-alia, added in total income of assessee in impugned final assessment order. 3 ISS Facility Services India Private Limited 3.5 During the course of hearing, the ld. Authorised Representative referring to paras

Newedge Broker India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1254/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

The ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Shelter Housing Development, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 2936/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Acit-24(1) Mumbai Shelter Housing Development 401-402, Viraj Towers, Room No.601, Western Express Highway Near Piramal Chambers, Vs. Weh Metro Station, Jeejeebhoy Lane, Andheri (East) Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 093 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagfm6042A

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR

Section 68

reply to Draft Assessment order have not been adequately dealt with as can be seen on comparison of the Draft Assessment order and Final Assessment order. They are almost the same. Further, as rightly pointed out by the appellant, addition u/s. 68 of partner's contribution cannot be made

M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed partly

ITA 2870/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.2870/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner 9Th Floor Prestige Of Income-Tax Thirulakshmi Vs. Circle-3(1)(1) No.11 M.G. Road Bengaluru Bengaluru 560 001 Pan No : Aabcs6967N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.R. Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Respondent By : D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 16/10/2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 144C(13) For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40Section 92C

upheld the adjustment proposed by the Ld.TPO in toto. On receipt of the DRP direction, the Ld.AO passed the final assessment order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 9. At the outset the Ld.AR submitted that assessee whish to contest the broad issues raised in Ground

M/S Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3363/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 3363/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Tyco Fire & The Assistant Security India Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of D-601, Rmz Contennial, Income Tax, Kundalahalli Main Road, Circle – 7 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabct0087C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 05-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 26.10.2018 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Appellant"), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Appeal Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao") Dated October 26, 2018 Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Pursuant To The Directions Dated September 20, 2018 Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Drp") U/S 144C (5) Of The Act (`The Impugned Order') Inter-Alia On The Following Grounds: That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CA

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

Date of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee against the final assessment order dated 26.10.2018 passed by the Ld.ACIT, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore for Assessment Year 2014-15 on following grounds of appeal. “Based on the facts ... segment. All other objections raised by assessee were dismissed by the DRP. 11. On receipt of the DRP direction, the Ld.AO passed the final assessment order making additions in the hands of assessee as under: Add: As per Transfer Pricing as discussed 76,19,11,715 above in para

Edunxt Global Sdn Bhd, Malaysia vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), International Taxation, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2496/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2496/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Edunxt Global Sdn Bhd, The Deputy Unit A(Ii) Level 5. Commissioner Of Income Menara Shell, Tax, 211 Jalan Tun Circle 1(1), Sambathan, International Taxation, Kuala Lumpur, Vs. Bangalore. My – 50470, Malaysia. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Ca : Shri K.V. Aravind, Advocate & Revenue By Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 23-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By Non Resident Assessee Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 26.09.2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit(It), Circle -1(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon'Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Had In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 9(1)(vi)

Date of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal by non resident assessee arises out of final assessment order dated 26.09.2017 passed by the Ld.DCIT(IT), Circle -1(1), Bangalore for Assessment Year 2014-15 on following grounds of appeal: “General and Legal Grounds

Hp India Sales Private Limited (Formerly Known As Hewlett - Packard India Sales Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 779/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40aSection 92C

been proposed (due to negative movement in the deferred revenue / Cost) and hence DRP did not issue any directions. The AO issued a final assessment order based on the directions of the DRP. In the final assessment order the AO retained the disallowance made u/s 40a(ia) and the observations

Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

ITA 699/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tata Power Solar The Deputy Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of 78, Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact4660J Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 699/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Kanchun Kaushal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals By Assessee & Revenue Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle -7 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: It(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 (Revenue’S Appeal): “1. The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel Are Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, CA

Section 144C

Date of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present cross appeals by assessee and revenue arises out of final assessment order dated 28.01.2016 passed by the Ld.DCIT, Circle -7 (1)(1), Bangalore for Assessment Year 2011-12 on following grounds of appeal ... confirming the additions proposed in the draft assessment order. On receipt of the DRP directions, the Ld.AO passed the final assessment order on 28.01.2016. Page 5 of 17 IT(TP)A Nos. 548 & 699/Bang/2016 Aggrieved, the assessee and the revenue have filed appeals before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld.AR submitted

M/S Denso Kirloskar Industries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 649/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T Suryanarayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 154

assessee. In respect of adjustment made towards interest paid and sustained the adjustment made towards manufacturing segment. The AO passed the final assessment order giving effect to the TP adjustment as per the directions of the DRP. 4. Aggrieved by the final order of the AO, the assessee ... assessee’s case for earlier asst. year had rejected the request for grant of adjustment. 8. The AO passed the final assessment order considered directions of the DRP 9. Before us, the Ld.AR submitted that from harmonies reading of sub clause (iii) to clause (e) of Rule

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

ITA 548/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, CA

Section 144C

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 129/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2014-15 M/S. Continental Automotive Vs. Dcit, Components India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Plot No.53B, Bommasandra Industrial Bengaluru. Area, Hosur Road, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru–560 099. Pan : Aakcs 9578 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92

guidance of the AO to enable him to complete the assessment after considering report of TPO. The AO passes a final assessment order on the basis of directions of the DRP. 9. The legislative intent in introducing the new transfer pricing legislation, as available in the Memorandum explaining the provisions ... objections insofar as the TP adjustments made by the TPO were concerned. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order dated 30.11.2018 in which the TP adjustment was reworked to Rs. 143,30,70,101/-. 12. Apart from the Transfer Pricing additions, there

Givaundan(India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Ltu Cr 1, Bangalore

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

ITA 229/BANG/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 229/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Givaudan (India) The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Plot No. 26, 2Nd Cross, Income Tax, Jigani Industrial Area, Ltu, Bangalore – 562 106. Circle – 1, Vs. Pan: Aaacv7454J Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sumeet Khurana, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit- Revenue By I Date Of Hearing : 11-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaiit Is Submitted That The Main Appeal Was Heard By This Tribunal & Order Was Passed On 02/08/2019. However Grounds 6 & 7 Were Not Adjudicated Independently For Assessment Year 2010- 11. The Assessee Preferred Mp No.15/Bang/2020 Requesting For Adjudication Of These Grounds. 2. Accordingly The Present Appeal Is Fixed For Hearing For Adjudication Of Following Grounds: “6. That The Learned Ao & The Learned Panel Erred Both In Facts & Law In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Tpo Of Making An Adjustment To The Transfer Price Of The Appellant In Respect Of The Payment Of Royalty By Rs.27,67,42,242, Holding That The International Transaction

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CA

failed to produce the evidence to contradict the findings of the learned TPO.” On receipt of the DRP direction the Ld.AO passed the final assessment order disallowing the royalty paid by assessee to the AE. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Page ... guidelines does not consider the provisions of Chapter X of the Act. On receipt of the DRP direction, the Ld.AO passed the final assessment order making addition in the hands of assessee. 10. Before us the Ld.AR submitted that buy back is a transaction on capital account and therefore cannot

Tata Autocomp System Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 1677/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Aarthi SatheFor Respondent: Achal Sharma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

erred in considering the period of limitation of 4 years from the end of the financial year in which the final assessment order was passed, instead of the draft assessment order. Your Appellant prays that such rectification order be treated as null and void. 2. Ground 2: Erroneously passing

Accenture Solution Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7457/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7457/मुं/2018 ("न. व. 2014-15 ) Accenture Solutions Private Limited(‘Asol) [As A Successor To Accenture Services Private Limited (“Aspl”) Which Has Merged Into Asol With An Effective Date Of 1 December 2016] Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Phirojshah Nagar, Vikhroli West, Off Lbs Marg, Mumbai 400 079. Pan: Aaach-3235-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate With Shri Hiten Chande ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat Cit Dr & Shri Satya Pinisetty सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate with Shri Hiten ChandeFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat CIT DR &

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

assessee assailing validity of the assessment order reads as under: “13. Without prejudice to the Ground Nos. 1 to 12, the Final Assessment Order dated 29 October 2018 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Act is bad in law and ought to be quashed ... 04/09/2018 in the correct name i.e. M/s. Accenture Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Consequent to the directions of the DRP the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order 4 dated 29/10/2018. The final assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer in the name of M/s. Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd. i.e. erstwhile

Dhl Logistics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7286/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledhl Logistics Pvt Ltd Vs. Acit – 9(3)(1) 201A, Silver Utopia, Room No. 215, Cardinal Gracias Road 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Chakala, Andheri (E) Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400099 Mumbai – 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm6824A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Madhur Agarwal.Ar Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat.Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agarwal.ARFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat.CIT.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92D

Date of Pronouncement 15.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed in pursuance to directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel ... passed order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act dated 30.11.2018. 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 the submissions on the issues and filed the synopsis

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

In the result, ground 26 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 790/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.103/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 It(Tp)A No.790/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.Brady Company India Private The Income Tax Officer Limited, No.26, Survey No.41 Ward 1(1)(4) V. Bengaluru. Konappana Agrahara Village Begur, Hobli, Electronci City, Phase-Ii, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaccb8163A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2022 Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals Are At The Instance Of The Assessee. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-2015. 2. The Reason For Filing Two Appeals For Assessment Year 2014-2015 Is That Pursuant To The Dispute Resolution Panel’S (Drp) Directions (Directions Dated 28.09.2008), The A.O. Passed Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act Dated 15.11.2018. In The Said Assessment Order, The Aggregate Transfer Pricing Adjustment Was Determined At Rs.14,43,51,081. An Appeal Has Been Filed Before The Tribunal Against The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act (Appeal No.It(Tp)A No.103/Bang/2019). Subsequently, On Application By The Assessee, The Drp Passed Rectification Order Dated

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 154

appeals for assessment year 2014-2015 is that pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Panel’s (DRP) directions (directions dated 28.09.2008), the A.O. passed final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the I.T.Act dated 15.11.2018. In the said assessment order, the aggregate Transfer Pricing adjustment was determined at Rs.14 ... No.103 & 790/Bang/2019. M/s.Brady Company India Private Limited. confirmed the TPO’s order. Pursuant to the DRP’s directions, the final assessment order was passed. 4.4 Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee has raised this issue before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper book enclosing therein

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

In the result, ground 26 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 103/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 154