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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2833/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA

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

Hearing : 24-02-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 21-03-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of the final assessment order dated 30.10.2017 passed by Ld.DCIT, Circle – 4(1)(1), Bangalore for Assessment Year 2013-14 on following grounds of appeal: “ 1. The Assessment Order dated ... Against the draft assessment order, assessee filed its objections before the DRP. 4. On receipt of the DRP directions, the Ld.AO passed the final assessment order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that Ground no. 2.1 is general in nature and therefore

M/S Talisma Corporation Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2499/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2499/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Talisma Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Olympia The Deputy Building, Commissioner Of Bagmane Tech Park, Income Tax, C V Raman Nagar, Circle 7 (1)(1), Byrasandra Post, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aabct1052F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri T. Suryanarayan, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 26.09.2017 For A.Y. 2013-14 By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Talisma Corporation Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Appellant"), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Appeal Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As The Learned A01 Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act. 1961 (The Act") On The Following Grounds: That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law: 1. The Learned Ao/ Transfer Pricing Officer (.Tpo') Erred. In Law & In Facts. In Making An Addition Of Inr 1,44.13,409

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 271(1)(c)

Hearing : 21-03-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 21-03-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal filed by assessee against the final assessment order dated 26.09.2017 for A.Y. 2013-14 by Ld.DCIT, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore on following grounds of appeal: “Based on the facts and circumstances

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

In the result, appeal of the assesee is partly allowed

ITA 1901/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri R.E Balasubramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A Sreenivasa Rao, CIT(DR)

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

deleted the addition to the extent of Rs.1,50,23,759/- the effect of which was given in the final assessment order. 29. The assessee now is in appeal before us contending the addition of Rs.18,12,617/- being treated as capital in nature. The Ld.AR brought our attention

Afton Chemical India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-9(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6296/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Afton Chemicals India Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Vs. Tax, Circle-9(1)(1), Lotus Corporate Park, 7Th Floor, A 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Wing, Ram Mandir Lane, Off. W.E. Road, Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aahca 6067 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Amol Mahajan, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Satya Pennisheety, DR

Hearing : 16/03/2022 Date of pronouncement : 16/03/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the final assessment order dated 30.11.2017 passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-9(1)(1), Mumbai (hereinafter shall be referred as ‘Assessing Officer’) for assessment year

DCIT 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sofdel Systems P..Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA no

ITA 3618/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 250Section 92C

While the appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 are against the final assessment order dated 29.01.2016, passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of Act by the Assessing Officer (“the AO”). 2. Since the appeals

Goodrich Aerospace Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 566/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 566/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Goodrich Aerospace Services Pvt. Ltd., 14/1 & 15/1, The Deputy Maruthi Industrial Commissioner Of Estate, Income Tax, Phase 2, Hoody Village, Circle – 3 (1)(1), Whitefield Road, Vs. Bangalore. Kr Puram, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan: Aaacb8857H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Hereinafter Taken By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another. I. Transfer Pricing 1. The Learned Assessing Officer ("Ao"), Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Learned Tpo") & The Honourable Dispute

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate

Section 40Section 92BSection 92C

Pronouncement : 16-03-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal by the assessee has been filed by assessee against the final assessment order dated 30.08.2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2017-18 on following grounds of appeal: “The grounds hereinafter ... receipt of the DRP directions computed addition in the hands of the assessee at Rs. 3,48,38,463/-. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. Page 4 of 9 IT(TP)A No. 566/Bang/2021 4. The only issue contested by the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 719/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh Chaugule, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gopinath C.H , CIT(DRP-2)

Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)Section 37

return of income as an admissible revenue expenditure u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act (the Act). The assessing Officer (AO) in the final assessment order dated 18/12/2017, inter alia held that since the R&D expenditure had been incurred out of the grants received from the Government which

Ids Software Solutions India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 537/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.537/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Ids Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Vs. Shabari Complex, Ground Floor, Fo Cabin, No.8, Circle – 3(1)(1), Field Marshal Cariappa Road, Ashok Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 025. Pan : Aabci 243O G Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

should not be any upper cap on the working capital adjustments. The IT(TP)A No.537/Bang/2021 Page 5 of 11 AO passed the final assessment order in accordance with the DRP directions and concluded adjustments at INR 3,01,81,677/- 9. Aggrieved by the order passed ... five comparable companies, as mentioned above and retained the same set of comparables, as proposed by the TPO. 12. The AO passed the final assessment order, vide order dated 29th September 2021, based on the DRP directions, making an adjustment of INR 2,33,57,747/-, as under : Particulars Amount

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result we hold that the learned principal

ITA 737/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

For Appellant: Ms Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263(2)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

assessee was taken up for scrutiny. Draft assessment order was passed. As assessee did not want to approach Dispute Resolution Panel, final assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(3) of the Act was passed on 25th March, 2015 determining the total income

Ups Asia Group Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1220/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 9(1)(i)

Order – 08/03/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the final assessment order dated 29.04.2021 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the Assessing Officer ... rejected the objections filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer, in conformity with the directions issued by the DRP, passed the final assessment order under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. UPS Asia Group

Mysore Minerals Limited (Now Known As Karnataka State Minerals Corporation Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 465/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

issued notice u/s. 148 by recording the reasons with regard to CSR expenditure of Rs.3,32,79,967. 8. However, in the final assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 24.11.2017, the made addition on disallowance of CSR expenditure. Now the contention of the ld. AR is that

Mysore Minerals Limited (Now Known As Karnataka State Minerals Corporation Limited), Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 464/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Altran Technologies India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2904/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2904/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Altran Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., C/O Ernst & Young Llp, The Deputy Ground & 1St Floor, Commissioner Of Income ‘A’ Wing, Divyasree Chambers, Tax, Vs. #11, O’ Shaughnessy Road, Circle – 1 (1)(1), Langford Gardens, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaaca7125R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 31/10/2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Altran Technologies India Private Limited (The 'Appellant') Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Id. Ao') Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The 'Act') Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel (`Drp') On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

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

Date of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against the final assessment order dated 31/10/2017 passed by the Ld.DCIT, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore for assessment year 2013-14 on following grounds of appeal: “Based on the facts and circumstances ... 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. 8. At the outset the Ld.AR submitted that assessee whish to contest the broad issues raised in Ground

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

In the result appeals filed by assessee for assessment years

ITA 2171/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 210/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Amicorp Management India Pvt. Ltd., Unit No. 701 & 702, The Income Tax Officer, 7Th Floor, Campus 6B, Ward – 1 (1)(3), Rmz Ecoworld, Sarjapur, Bangalore. Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aafca1468C Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 2171/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Amicorp Management India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Unit No. 701 & 702, Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Campus 6B, Income Tax, Rmz Ecoworld, Sarjapur, Circle – 1 (1)(2), Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aafca1468C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sherry Goyal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022

For Appellant: Ms. Sherry Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

Page 2 of 11 IT(TP)A Nos. 210 & 2171/Bang/2017 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeals are filed by assessee against final assessment order dated 05/12/2016 and order dated 25/09/2017 passed by the Ld.ITO Ward 1(1)(3) and Ld.DCIT, Circle -1(2), Bangalore for assessment years ... above re-imbursement cost would justify the fact of the case."” 2.9 On receipt of the DRP directions, the Ld.AO passed final assessment order, against which assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. At the outset the Ld.AR submitted that an additional ground number 6 has been raised, which

Amicrop Management India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee for assessment years

ITA 210/BANG/2017[2012 -2013]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022

For Appellant: Ms. Sherry Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

Ecl Finance Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. - 3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 899/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

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

following findings :- "5.27. It is, therefore, summed up that the time limit for completion of assessment, or in other words, passing of the final assessment order pursuant to the order of the TPO, is contained in section 144C(4) and (13); the time limit given u/s 153 has no relation ... passing order u/s 92CA(3). 5.28. Turning to the facts of the instant case, we find that the AO passed the final assessment order on 29.1.2015, which is well within a period of one month from the end of the month in which direction was received from

DCIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Nomura Structured Finance Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 1711/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh IraniFor Respondent: Smt. Vatsalya Jha

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

SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee are against the final assessment order dated 29.01.2015, passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year

Diamond Dye-Chem Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 596/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalediamond Dye-Chem Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 6(2)(2) (Now Merged With Basf 5Th Floor, Aayakar India Ltd) Bhavan, Plot No. 37, Chandivali Mumbai – 400 001. Farm Road, Chandivali, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd3478N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitesh Joshi.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr & Sri.Satya Pinisetty.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Mr.Nitesh Joshi.ARFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR &

Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Order. The DRP has passed the order u/sec144C(5) of the Act with the directions dated 30/12/2014.Subsequently the learned assessing officer, has passed final assessment order u/sec143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act on 28-11-2014 in the name of M/s Diamond Dye-Chem Ltd(Now merged with ... provisions of Section 144C read with clause (b) of sub section 15. Moreover, it has been urged that in consequence, the final assessment order dated 31 October 2016 was beyond limitation in terms of Section 153(1) read with Section 153 (4). For the purposes of the present proceeding

M/S Cypress Semiconductor Technology India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3133/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 3133/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Cypress Semiconductor Technology India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 65/2, Bagmane Laurel, Commissioner Of Block C, Bagmane Tech Park, Income Tax, C.V Raman Nagar, Circle – 2 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 093. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcc2470Q Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar

Section 133(6)Section 92CSection 92D

Date of Pronouncement : 28-02-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against the final assessment order dated 25/09/2018 passed by Ld.DCIT, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bangalore for assessment year 2014-15 on following grounds of appeal: “The grounds mentioned herein by the Appellant ... Persistent Systems Ltd. 5 R S Software (India) Ltd. 6 Thirdware Solutions Ltd. On receipt of the DRP directions, the Ld.AO passed the final assessment order. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal raising various issues. However at the time of argument, the Ld.AR submitted

American Power Conversion (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 1111/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Date of Pronouncement : 28-02-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee against final assessment order under section 143(3) read with 144C of the Act dated 06/07/2012 passed by Ld.JCIT (LTU), Bangalore for assessment year 2008-09 on following grounds of appeal ... eliminating Honda R&D (India) Private Limited. and Oil Field Instrumentation (India) Limited from the final set of comparables in the final assessment order, which was rejected by the DRP in their directions, after taking cognizance of submission made by the Appellant. The Page