“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

Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited (Formerly Known As M/S Core Objects India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 682/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92C

software. The proposal to disallow provision for rent came to be upheld. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order dated 29.01.2016 in which the TP adjustment was reworked to Rs. 1,00,46,453/-. Aggrieved by the final assessment order to the extent ... Communication Technologies Ltd. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the TP adjustment was reworked to Rs. 1,00,646,453/- in the final assessment order dated 28.12.2018. 12. Against the final Order of Assessment, assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. The grounds that were pressed

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 5022/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

Respondent- Assessee as "Sony Mobile Communications (India) Private Limited (now' merged with Sony India Private Ltd)".; (x) however the AO still passed the final assessment order under section 143(3)/144C in the name of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd.; (xz) thus, the final order was framed ... existent company and the question for adjudication was, whether the said defect was curable or made the final assessment order void; (x) in (a) Pr. CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 330 250 Taxman 409/397 IT R 681 (Delhi), (b) Spice Enfotainment

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 5021/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 5020/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 4561/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 4560/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 4559/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

Alstom Holdings, France vs. DCIT(International Taxation), Circle-1(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2560/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Alstom Holdings, Vs Dcit, 48, Rue Albert Dhalenne, Circle 1(1), 93482, Saint-Quen Cedex, International Taxation, France. New Delhi. Pan: Aaica8751F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Of The Ao U/S 143(3)/147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The It Act, 1961, Relating To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Time Of Hearing. However, Application Has Been Filed By The Assessee Seeking Withdrawal Of The Appeal On The Ground That The Assessee Has Opted To Settle The Dispute Relating To The Tax Arrears For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Under The Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Assessee Has Also Obtained Form No.3. It Is Accordingly Requested In The Application That This Appeal May Be Allowed To Be Withdrawn.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

Date of Hearing : 04.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 04.02.2022 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order of the AO u/s 143(3)/147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the IT Act, 1961, relating to the assessment year 2010-11. 2. None

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

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2511/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)

Date of Pronouncement : 03-02-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against the final assessment order dated 30.10.2019 passed by Ld.DCIT, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Act for Assessment Year ... claimed in the Return of income and directed the Ld.AO to verify the same. 5. The Ld.AO passed the final assessment order on 30.10.2019 to give effect to the directions of the DRP. The Ld.AO after verification disallowed the depreciation on goodwill amounting to Rs 6,08,69,744/-. Aggrieved

Dsv Solution P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 922/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledvs Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs. Additional/Joint/ A-203, The Qube, Cts Assistant No. 1489, Mv Road, Commissioner Of Marol, Andheri East, Income Tax, National Mumbai – 400059. E- Assessment Centre, Delhi. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu5306L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Karishmaprataphekar.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Ms.KarishmaPrataphekar.ARFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat. CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C(1)

passed the order U/sec144C(5) of the Act dated 27.08.2020. DSV Solutions P. Ltd., Mumbai. 6. Further, the A.O. has passed the final assessment order u/s 144C(13) r.w.s 92CA r.w.s 143(3) of the Act as per the directions of the DRP and assessed the total income of Rs.52

M/S Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 608/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present cross appeals are filed by assessee as well as revenue against the final assessment order dated 28.01.2016 by the Ld.DCIT, LTU, Circle -1, Bangalore u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act for Assessment Year 2011-12. In revenue

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Robert Bosch Engineering & Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 445/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

M/S. Acusis Software India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bengaluru

ITA 2702/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2702/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Acusis Software India The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 17/2, Dollars Chamber, Income Tax, Lalbagh Road, Circle – 1(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 027. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aadca2415P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order 12.10.2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Revised & Modified Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Acusis Software India 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 Ao'] Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act. 1961 ('The Act') On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)

Pronouncement : 01-02-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal by the assessee has been filed by assessee against the final assessment order 12.10.2017 passed by the Ld.DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore relating to Assessment Year 2013-14 on following revised and modified grounds of appeal: “Based ... Limited 7. 44.07% (Segmental) Arithmetic Mean 19.91% Less: Working capital Adjustment -3.56% Adjusted arithmetic mean 23.47% On receipt of the DRP directions, the final assessment order was passed by making addition in the hands of the assessee at Rs.1,15,96,000/-. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee

Hapag-Lloyd Ag, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

ITA 972/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Hapag-Lloyd Ag The Dy. Commissioner Of C/O Hapag-Lloyd India Pvt. Income-Tax (International Ltd. Taxation), Range -2(2)(2), Room No. 1606, 16 Th Floor, 403 & 404, Satellite Gazebo, Vs. A Wing, 4Th Floor, Guru Air India Building, Nariman Hargoindji Marg, Andheri Point, Mumbai-400 021 (East), Mumbai-400 093 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aacfe7262L Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, Advocates, Revenue By : Shri Milind Chavan, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, DR

Section 143Section 234Section 270Section 270ASection 44BSection 90(2)

then grant credit of tax. Such directions were issued on 13.03.2021. 07. Based on these directions, the learned Assessing Officer passed a final assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act on 19.04.2021 determining the total income of the assessee

Deutsche Cib Centre P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2179/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 37

आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (AM): This appeal in ITA No.2179/Mum/2015 for A.Y.2010-11 preferred by the order against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 04/02/2015 u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as Act, pursuant ... basis that no CA certificate has been enclosed with letter dated 04.03.2014 filed before the ld. AO. Thereafter the ld. AO passed the final assessment order in accordance with the directions of the ld. DRP. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3.3. During the course of hearing

Global E Business Operations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 418/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 143(3)

Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member These are cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated 29.12.2015 for the assessment year 2011-12. Assessee’s appeal

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Global E- Business Operations Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 250/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 143(3)

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 942/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

assessment proceedings were completed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act by the learned AO vide a final assessment order dated 30 October 2017 assessing the total loss of the Appellant at Rs 33,16,59,867. Proceedings under section ... order cannot be construed to be an order passed by the AO. Commissioner of co-ordinate rank is not empowered to determine whether final assessment order pursuant to DRP (i.e. body consisting of three Commissioners) is erroneous and prejudicial ‘to the interest of the Revenue. 35. Therefore, in facts

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT, Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 941/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

Siemens Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1146/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesiemens Ltd (Successor Vs. Dcit, In Interest To Siemens Corporate Circle - Building Technologies 8(2)(1), Pvt Ltd.,) Room No. 615, 6Th Birla Aurora, Level 20, Floor, Aayakar P.No. 1080, Ar. Annie Bhavan, Mk Road, Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400030. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs0764L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Ajit Pal Singh.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Pronouncement 31.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee company has filed the appeal against the final assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) r.w.s 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in pursuance to the directions ... erred in facts and in law by coming to the conclusion that there was no infirmity in the directions issued as also the final assessment order passed by the Ld. Panel in the name of Siemens Building Technologies Pvt Ltd., even when it was categorically pointed out that assessee