← All Phrases

“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
71
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
50
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
49
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

Sabre Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Asstt. CIT International Tax Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 154/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Sabre Asia Pacific Pte Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax 1 Paya Lebar Link, #05-05 Plq2, International Tax Circle 4(2)(1) Paya Lebar Quarter, Paya Lebar 17Th Floor, Air India Building Road, Singapore 408 533 Nariman Point Mumbai C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp One International Center Tower 3, 30Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone (W), Mumbai- 400 013, India Pan : Aabca6590M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate Respondent By Shri Milind Chavan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 24-01-2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi (Am)

Section 143(3)

24th December, 2020 for assessment year 2017-18. 02 Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “The appellant objects to the final assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Act] dated 24 December 2020 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income

Swiss Re Global Business Solutions India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 397/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)

Date of Pronouncement : 21.01.2022 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order of the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 29.06.2021 for the assessment year 2016-17 on the following grounds:- “That ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law: 1. Final assessment order dated 29.06.2021 passed by NFAC is not in accordance with express provisions of the Act, bad in law and it is time barred. IT(TP)A No.397/Bang/2021 Page 2 of 21 2. Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred

Dhr Holding India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi

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

ITA 1614/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 92BSection 92C

Order : 21.01.2022 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM : The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the final assessment order dated 23.10.2017, passed under section 143(3)/144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) in pursuance of the directions given ... length, but surprisingly, determined the arm’s 7 length price of purchase of fixed assets at Nil. The Assessing Officer, while framing the final assessment order, even went ahead one step further and disallowed the claim of depreciation considering the arm’s length price determined

Cisco Systems Services B.V, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 961/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 961/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Cisco Systems Services B.V. – India The Deputy Branch, Commissioner Of Brigade South Parade, Income Tax, No. 10, International Taxation, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Circle – 1(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaccc4836D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkaihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Ao Dated 27.02.2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(14) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] On The Following Grounds: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cisco Systems Services B.V. - India Branch (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Appellant.) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - Circle 1(1) ('Assessing Officer' Or 'Ao') Dated February 27, 2017 In Pursuance Of The Directions & The Revised Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp'), Bangalore Dated December 29, 2016 & January 16. 2017 Respectively, Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('Act) On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CA
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 92C

also initiating penalty proceedings along with draft assessment proceedings are bad in law, being contrary to the procedure prescribed under law, thus subsequent final assessment order along with demand notice loses its sanctity. Being so, it deserves to be treated as null and void in the eyes ... Thereafter, according to the petitioner company, the second respondent, instead of passing a provisional order or a draft assessment order, has passed a final assessment order dated 26.03.2013 as contemplated under Section 143(3) of the Act. Section 143(3) and 144(C) of the Act reads as follows

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 556/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member These are cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue directed 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 30.01.2015 & 28.01.2016 for the assessment years ... losses from other units (10A and non-10A units). While the DRP accepted the objection of the assessee, the AO in the final assessment order for the first time excluded the loss/profit of section 10A units eligible for deduction at the source level itself, while no such direction was given

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Xchanging Solutions Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 402/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member These are cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue directed 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 30.01.2015 & 28.01.2016 for the assessment years ... losses from other units (10A and non-10A units). While the DRP accepted the objection of the assessee, the AO in the final assessment order for the first time excluded the loss/profit of section 10A units eligible for deduction at the source level itself, while no such direction was given

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 492/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member These are cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue directed 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 30.01.2015 & 28.01.2016 for the assessment years ... losses from other units (10A and non-10A units). While the DRP accepted the objection of the assessee, the AO in the final assessment order for the first time excluded the loss/profit of section 10A units eligible for deduction at the source level itself, while no such direction was given

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Xchanging Solutions Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 459/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member These are cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue directed 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 30.01.2015 & 28.01.2016 for the assessment years ... losses from other units (10A and non-10A units). While the DRP accepted the objection of the assessee, the AO in the final assessment order for the first time excluded the loss/profit of section 10A units eligible for deduction at the source level itself, while no such direction was given

Gemological Research (Thailand) Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The ACIT (International Taxation) Centre-2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 978/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No. 978/Mum/2021 for A.Y.2017-18 preferred by the order against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 20/04/2021 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as Act, pursuant to the directions of the ld. Dispute Resolution

Gemolagical Institute of America Inc., Mumbai vs. The ACIT (International Taxation) Circle-2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 975/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA Nos.975/Mum/2021 for A.Y.2017-18 preferred by the order against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 20/04/2021 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as Act, pursuant ... business receipts (Rs.440,64,95,252/-). Accordingly, the ld. AO determined the profit attributable to PE at Rs.44,74,79,593/- in the final assessment order pursuant to the directions of the ld. DRP. We find that the ld. DRP had given a categorical finding in 5.1 of its order

Olympus Medical Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(1), Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 873/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144B

passed by Id. AO / Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) / DRP are bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the final assessment order is bad in law in not following the directions of DRP and the appeal effect order passed by the TPO, consequently all further proceedings ... also vitiated and invalid in law. 3. Impugned final assessment order dated 18.05.2021 is invalid and void ab initio since the same is not in accordance with the procedure laid down under the provisions of section 144B of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S. Cisco Systems Services B.V. India Branch, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2572/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2572/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Cisco Systems Services B.V. – India The Deputy Branch, Commissioner Of Brigade South Parade, Income Tax, No. 10, Mahatma Gandhi International Taxation, Road, Circle – 1(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaccc4836D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Ao Dated 31.12.2015 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] On The Following Grounds: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cisco Systems Services B.V. —India Branch (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant'), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Learned Ao') Dated October 15, 2019 Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act') Pursuant To The Directions Dated September 23, 2019 Issued By The Drp U/S 144C(5) Of The Act ('The Impugned Order') Inter-Alia On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 156Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C(2)

also initiating penalty proceedings along with draft assessment proceedings are bad in law, being contrary to the procedure prescribed under law, thus subsequent final assessment order along with demand notice loses its sanctity. Being so, it deserves to be treated as null and void in the eyes ... instead of passing a provisional order or a draft assessment order, has passed a Page 7 of 16 IT(IT)A No. 2572/Bang/2019 final assessment order dated 26.03.2013 as contemplated under Section 143(3) of the Act. Section 143(3) and 144(C) of the Act reads as follows

M/S. Buro Happold Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation) -1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 951/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Buro Happold Ltd Vs. Dcit (It) – 1(3)(2) C/O. Urmi Axis, 6Th 1810, 18Th Floor, Air Floor, Famous Studio India Bldg, Lane, Dr. Emoses Road, Narimanpoint,Mumbai- Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400 021. 400011. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb9239Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Anuj Kisnadwala. Ar Respondent By : Mr.Milind Chavan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/Sec144C(5) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr.Anuj Kisnadwala. ARFor Respondent: Mr.Milind Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 234B

assessee being non-resident assessee stated to be engaged in providing engineering and consultancy services was assessed for year under consideration vide final assessment order dated 23/10/2017 pursuant to the directions of Ld. DRP, wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.637.19 Lacs as against Nil return filed

ACIT, Circle - 16 (1), Mumbai vs. Bbc Worldwide Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 158/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dcit -16(1), Vs. M/S. Bbc World Wide Room No. 439, 4Th Media Pvt Ltd., Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 401, 4Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai – Construction House A, 400 020. Off Linking Road, 24Th Road, Khar (West), Mumbai – 400052 Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb2307F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.C T Mathew. DRFor Respondent: Shri.Siddhesh Chougle. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)Section 92C

financial year 2012-13 for your kind reference (enclosed at page 113 to 142 of the paper book). However, while passing the final assessment order for the subject year, the Ld. AO has alleged that the abovementioned subvention relief granted by BBCWW to the Appellant was remission or cessation

Nomura Services India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2303/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalenomura Services India Vs. Dcit – Circle 10(3) Pvt Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 10Th Floor, Nomura, Mk Road, Off High Street, Mumbai – 400020. Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400076. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcl0053C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Faruk Irani & Mr Sumin Mehta.Ar Respondent By : Mrs.Vatsala Jha. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act In Pursuance To Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/Sec144C(5) Of The Act Dated 07.09.2012. Nomura Services India P Ltd., Mumbai. 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal As Under:

For Appellant: Mr.Faruk Irani &For Respondent: Mrs.Vatsala Jha. DR
Section 143(3)

determined the total income with TP adjustments Rs. 40,37,04,260/- and passed the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act dated 30-01-2013. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal

Gbt India Private Limited, Delhi vs. National E-Assesment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Stay application is accordingly held to be infructuous

ITA 462/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

pronouncement : 06/01/2022 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J. M. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against final assessment order 30.03.2021 passed by the ld. Assessing Officer for the quantum of assessment passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income ... order dated 31.1.2020 has decided the issues in favour of the assessee. To buttress this, our attention has also been drawn through the final assessment order dated 30.3.2021 wherein the directions of the Ld. DRP have been noted. On each of the points, the Ld. DRP vide its order dated

Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 1, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed in terms of

ITA 601/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 32(1)(i)

Pronouncement 04.01.2022 & S.A. No.167/Del/2021 Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd. vs. ACIT ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against final assessment order dated 31.3.2021passed u/s 143(3) read with section 144 (13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 2. Brief facts ... business profit were reduced by the amount of profits i.e. Rs. 2,20,86,134/-. It was further submitted that in the final assessment order, the income from business and profit was incorrectly computed without allowing the deduction of this amount which has resulted in double taxation of the amount

M/S Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It) Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd., The Deputy C/O Mtr Foods Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Income Tax (It), 100 Feet Inner Ring Road, Asmnt, Circle – 2(1), Ejipura, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Aabco4087B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 17/12/2018 Passed U/S. 143 (3) By The Ld.Dcit, Asmnt, Circle-2(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. Barred By Limitation The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao') Is Barred By Limitation In View Of The Express Provisions Of Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Wherein, The Order Should Be Passed Within One Month From The End Of The Month In Which Dispute

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate
Section 143Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 9(1)(vii)

Hearing : 03-11-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 30-12-2021 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against final assessment order dated 17/12/2018 passed u/s. 143 (3) by the Ld.DCIT, ASMNT, Circle-2(1), Bangalore for assessment year 2015-16 on following grounds of appeal ... fees for technical services and subjecting it to tax @ 10% is Upheld.” On receipt of the DRP directions, the Ld.AO passed the final assessment order making addition amounting to ₹ 1,39,34,515/- in the hands of assessee. Aggrieved by the final assessment order passed by the learned DCIT

D.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Swiss Reshared Services India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 438/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 290/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Swiss Re Global Business Solution India Pvt. Ltd. (Previously Known As Swiss Re The Deputy Shared Services India Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner Of 2Nd To 5Th Floor, Fairwinds Income Tax, Building, Embassy Golf Links Circle – 6(1)(2), Business Park, Challaghatta Vs. Bangalore. Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560 071. Pan: Aaecs8786L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 438/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 (By Revenue) : Shri Nageswar Rao, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Revenue By Meena, Cit Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 23-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30 -12-2021 Order Per Bench Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 92C

Date of Hearing : 23-12-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 30 -12-2021 ORDER PER BENCH Present appeal is filed by assessee against final assessment order dated 29.01.2015 passed by the Ld.DCIT, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore for Assessment Year 2010-11 on following grounds of appeal. Page ... order passed by the Ld.TPO therein was held to be time barred. Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal further held that in such circumstances the final assessment order would be same but the addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment arising from the determination of the ALP of the international transaction

M/S.Nds Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 364/BANG/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 364/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Synamedia Ltd. [Formerly Known As ‘Nds Limited’], The Assistant C/O. M/S. Synamedia India Pvt. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Block 9A & 9B, Pritech Park, International Survey No. 51-64/4, Taxation, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Vs. Circle – 1(2), Bellandur Village, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aabcn2524L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Dilip, Standing Revenue By Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 16-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-12-2021

For Appellant: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234B

Date of Pronouncement : 28-12-2021 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee against final assessment order dated 16.12.2016 passed by Ld.ACIT, Circle-1(2), International Taxation u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and 144C of the Act for Assessment Year 2007-08 on following