← 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

Genpact Mobility Services India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Range-42, New Delhi

ITA 6133/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shrisanjay Awasthi

Section 144C(13)Section 92C

orders for the impugned assessment years are barred by limitation. It was the submission that for determining the period of limitation for passing final assessment order, the provisions of section 144C of the Act are to be read with section 153 of the Act, to the extent that the total ... individually furnished charts of relevant dates for the assessment years under consideration, for tabulating the relevant period of limitation within which the final assessment order was required to be passed. The Ld. ARs, in the individual cases being represented by them, demonstrated through the chart of dates that

Ericsson India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Ericsson India Global Services Private Limited), Delhi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), New Delhi

In the result, all ITA Nos

ITA 6094/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5493/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 बनाम Nec Corporation India Private Limited, Assessment Unit, A-31, 1St Floor, Lajpat Nagar, South Delhi, Delhi. Vs. Circle 16(1), C.R.Bldg, Pan No.Aaccn3496J I.P. Estate, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Arun Bhaduria, Advocate (Virtual) &Shri Nishank Vashistha, Adv Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5856/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 बनाम Lintec India Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 14Th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Vs. Income Tax, Nehru Place, South Delhi. Circle 13(1), C.R. Building,Delhi. Pan No.Aaccl3772F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144C(13)Section 92C

orders for the impugned assessment years are barred by limitation. It was the submission that for determining the period of limitation for passing final assessment order, the provisions of section 144C of the Act are to be read with section 153 of the Act, to the extent that the total ... individually furnished charts of relevant dates for the assessment years under consideration, for tabulating the relevant period of limitation within which the final assessment order was required to be passed. The Ld. ARs, in the individual cases being represented by them, demonstrated through the chart of dates that

Boeing India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 4(2), C.R. Building, I.P Estate, New Delhi, Delhi 110002

ITA 6061/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2021-22
Section 144C(13)Section 92C

orders for the impugned assessment years are barred by limitation. It was the submission that for determining the period of limitation for passing final assessment order, the provisions of section 144C of the Act are to be read with section 153 of the Act, to the extent that the total ... individually furnished charts of relevant dates for the assessment years under consideration, for tabulating the relevant period of limitation within which the final assessment order was required to be passed. The Ld. ARs, in the individual cases being represented by them, demonstrated through the chart of dates that

Amplifon (India) Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle 7, Delhi

ITA 6056/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2021-22
Section 144C(13)Section 92C

orders for the impugned assessment years are barred by limitation. It was the submission that for determining the period of limitation for passing final assessment order, the provisions of section 144C of the Act are to be read with section 153 of the Act, to the extent that the total ... individually furnished charts of relevant dates for the assessment years under consideration, for tabulating the relevant period of limitation within which the final assessment order was required to be passed. The Ld. ARs, in the individual cases being represented by them, demonstrated through the chart of dates that

Benetton India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), New Delhi, Cr Building

ITA 5997/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2021-22
Section 144C(13)Section 92C

orders for the impugned assessment years are barred by limitation. It was the submission that for determining the period of limitation for passing final assessment order, the provisions of section 144C of the Act are to be read with section 153 of the Act, to the extent that the total ... individually furnished charts of relevant dates for the assessment years under consideration, for tabulating the relevant period of limitation within which the final assessment order was required to be passed. The Ld. ARs, in the individual cases being represented by them, demonstrated through the chart of dates that

Federal Mogul Goetze India Limited, Delhi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

ITA 5946/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shrisanjay Awasthi

Section 144C(13)

orders for the impugned assessment years are barred by limitation. It was the submission that for determining the period of limitation for passing final assessment order, the provisions of section 144C of the Act are to be read with section 153 of the Act, to the extent that the total ... individually furnished charts of relevant dates for the assessment years under consideration, for tabulating the relevant period of limitation within which the final assessment order was required to be passed. The Ld. ARs, in the individual cases being represented by them, demonstrated through the chart of dates that

Lintec India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 13(1), Central Delhi

ITA 5856/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2021-22
Section 144C(13)Section 92C

orders for the impugned assessment years are barred by limitation. It was the submission that for determining the period of limitation for passing final assessment order, the provisions of section 144C of the Act are to be read with section 153 of the Act, to the extent that the total ... individually furnished charts of relevant dates for the assessment years under consideration, for tabulating the relevant period of limitation within which the final assessment order was required to be passed. The Ld. ARs, in the individual cases being represented by them, demonstrated through the chart of dates that

Nec Corporation India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(1), Delhi

In the result, all ITA Nos

ITA 5493/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5493/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 बनाम Nec Corporation India Private Limited, Assessment Unit, A-31, 1St Floor, Lajpat Nagar, South Delhi, Delhi. Vs. Circle 16(1), C.R.Bldg, Pan No.Aaccn3496J I.P. Estate, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Arun Bhaduria, Advocate (Virtual) &Shri Nishank Vashistha, Adv Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5856/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 बनाम Lintec India Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 14Th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Vs. Income Tax, Nehru Place, South Delhi. Circle 13(1), C.R. Building,Delhi. Pan No.Aaccl3772F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144C(13)Section 92C

orders for the impugned assessment years are barred by limitation. It was the submission that for determining the period of limitation for passing final assessment order, the provisions of section 144C of the Act are to be read with section 153 of the Act, to the extent that the total ... individually furnished charts of relevant dates for the assessment years under consideration, for tabulating the relevant period of limitation within which the final assessment order was required to be passed. The Ld. ARs, in the individual cases being represented by them, demonstrated through the chart of dates that

Swastik Vegetable Oil Products Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1105/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth ToshnivalFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

AADCS2224G 2016-17 143(3) r.w.s 153C of the 1. Act NIL 11,63,680/- 3. record. 4. Copy of the final assessment orders passed should be submitted to this office for The assessment records for the A.Y 2012-13 to A.Y. 2016-17 are returned herewith. Encl: Records

Sgd Pharma India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 477/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita-Tp Nos.130 & 447/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S. Sgd Pharma India Vs. Dy.Cit/I.T.O Private Limited, Ward/Circle 3 (1) Mahabubnagar Hyderabad Pan:Aadcc7815K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. K. Haritha, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. K. Haritha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 43BSection 92C

Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: Both these appeals are filed by M/s. SGD Pharma India Private Limited (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the separate final assessment orders passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under section 143(3) read with sections 144C(13) of the Income ... para 4 of the said circular. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order dated 25 February 2022 passed by the Ld. AO under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act pursuant to invalid

Sgd Pharma India Private Limited, Mahabubnagar vs. DCIT, Circle -3 (1), Hyderabad

ITA 130/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita-Tp Nos.130 & 447/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S. Sgd Pharma India Vs. Dy.Cit/I.T.O Private Limited, Mahabubnagar Pan:Aadcc7815K (Appellant) Ward/Circle 3 (1) Hyderabad (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, Ca राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Smt. K. Haritha, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 21/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: Both These Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Sgd Pharma India Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Final Assessment Orders Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Read With Sections 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act") Dated 25.02.2022 & 27.07.2022 For A.Y 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“Ld. Drp”). Since Identical Issues Are Involved In These Two Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. K. Haritha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 40A(7)Section 43BSection 92C

Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: Both these appeals are filed by M/s. SGD Pharma India Private Limited (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the separate final assessment orders passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under section 143(3) read with sections 144C(13) of the Income ... independent and without prejudice to each other. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. AO') pursuant to directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Paned ('Ld. Panel') under section 143(3) read with section

Suvodeep Pyne, Garia vs. ITO, Ward 63(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2252/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2251&2252/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Suvodeep Pyne…………………..…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Castle Apt 3B, 129, Garia Main Road, Kamdahari, Garia S.O, W.B-700084.. [Pan: Bbypp8655C] Vs. Ito, Ward-63(1), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Pratim Dutta, Adv. & Sanjana Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 09.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Kochi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 – Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This 2. Case, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Fy-2017-18, Relevant To The A.Y- 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 By Disclosing Gross Total Income Of Rs. 68,85,998/- & Claimed Deduction A Sum Of Ra.7,455/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Disclosed Income From Salary Of

Section 111ASection 112Section 154Section 250Section 90

present case. In the present case, the returns were filed without FTC, however the same was filed before passing of the final assessment order. The filing of FTC in terms of the Rule 128 is only directory in nature. The rule is only for the implementation of the provisions ... petitioner on 02.02.2021. The respondent is directed to give due credit to the Kenya income of the petitioner and pass the final assessment order. Further, it is made clear that the impugned order is set wade only to the extent of disallowing of FTC clam made by the petitioner

Suvodeep Pyne, Garia vs. ITO, Ward 63(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2251/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2251&2252/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Suvodeep Pyne…………………..…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Castle Apt 3B, 129, Garia Main Road, Kamdahari, Garia S.O, W.B-700084.. [Pan: Bbypp8655C] Vs. Ito, Ward-63(1), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Pratim Dutta, Adv. & Sanjana Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 09.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Kochi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 – Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This 2. Case, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Fy-2017-18, Relevant To The A.Y- 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 By Disclosing Gross Total Income Of Rs. 68,85,998/- & Claimed Deduction A Sum Of Ra.7,455/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Disclosed Income From Salary Of

Section 111ASection 112Section 154Section 250Section 90

present case. In the present case, the returns were filed without FTC, however the same was filed before passing of the final assessment order. The filing of FTC in terms of the Rule 128 is only directory in nature. The rule is only for the implementation of the provisions ... petitioner on 02.02.2021. The respondent is directed to give due credit to the Kenya income of the petitioner and pass the final assessment order. Further, it is made clear that the impugned order is set wade only to the extent of disallowing of FTC clam made by the petitioner

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Fl Smith Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1763/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Corporate Circle 1-1, Chennai vs. Fl Smidth Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1731/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short "Ld.Cit(A)") Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The 'Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

Assisstant Commisioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Fl Smith Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1682/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

D.A.V. Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-2, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

ITA 1670/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

I.T.A. Nos.1667 to 1670/Chny/24 assessee to satisfy him with respect to such a claim and no addition is made in the final assessment order, he can be said to have been formed an opinion whether or not in the final order he gives his reasons for not making addition. Further

D.A.V. Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-2, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15,

ITA 1669/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

Nos.1667 to 1670/Chny/24 assessee to satisfy him with respect to such a claim and no addition is made in the final assessment order, he can be said to have been formed an opinion whether or not in the final order he gives his reasons for not making addition. Further

D.A.V. Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-4, Chennai

ITA 1667/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Street, Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 4, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit 28.10.2025 21.01.2026 : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : आदेश/Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

doubt regarding any claim asking the assessee to satisfy him with respect to such a claim and no addition is made in the final assessment order, he can be said to have been formed an opinion whether or not in the final order he gives his reasons for not making

Express Freight Consortium, New Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, New Delhi

ITA 5422/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5422/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Express Freight Consortium, C-4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Dept, Civic Centre,Pratyakshar Bhawan, Shayama Prasad Mukherjee Marg, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaaae8440R अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Prashant Meharchandani, Advocate & Ms. Kanika Jain, Advocate Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5407/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 India Seah Precision Metal Prvate Limited, A-39, Sector-80, Phase-Ii, Noida,Uttarpradesh. Pan No.Aabch2680P बनाम Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(1), C.R. Building, New Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate, Shri Utkarsa Kumar Gupta, Advocate & Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5376/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Oriental Consultants India Private Limited, 10A-16, Ground Floor, Narain Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan No.Aabco8528P बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), Range-44, C.R. Building, Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Kashish Gupta, Ar, Ms. Taranjeet Kaur, Ar & Shri Anil Kumar, Advocate 1

orders for the impugned assessment years are barred by limitation. It was the submission that for determining the period of limitation for passing final assessment order, the provisions of section 144C of the Act are to be read with section 153 of the Act, to the extent that the total ... individually furnished charts of relevant dates for the assessment years under consideration, for tabulating the relevant period of limitation within which the final assessment order was required to be passed. The Ld. ARs, in the individual cases being represented by them, demonstrated through the chart of dates that