← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-25(1), New Delhi vs. Westcourt Hospitality Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3294/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Acit, Circle 25(1), Room Vs M/S. Westcourt Hospitality No. 192A, Cr Building, Pvt. Ltd. Ip Estate New-Delhi. 4391, B-5 & 6, Vasant Kunj, 110002 New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacw8734G Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2018-19] M/S. Westcourt Hospitality Vs Acit, Circle 25(1),Room Pvt. Ltd. No. 192A, Cr Building, Ip 4391, B-5 & 6, Vasant Estate New-Delhi. 110002 Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacw8734G Appellant Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

received by him. As per the assessment order, SCN was issued on 15.01.2021 date of compliance was fixed for 21.01.2021. The final assessment order was passed on 09.02.2021. Furthermore, the evidence adduced only serve to aid the initial contention of the assessee regarding the source of funds. AO himself

Veritas Storage Singapore Pte Limited, Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Int Tax 3(1)(1) Del, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2026/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year: 2022-23] Veritas Storage (Singapore) Ptd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd. 9 Tamasek Boulevard, Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, 39-01 Suntec Tower Two, Civic Centre, Minto Road, Singapore-038989 New Delhi-110002 Pan :Aafcv2394A (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Tarun Gulati, Sr. Adv. & Shri Nikhil Gupta, Adv. & Shri Prince Nagpal, Adv. Revenue By Srhi M.S. Nethrapal, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 30.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement .12.2025 Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am:

Section 144C(11)

satisfied. Appeal of the assessee on Ground Nos. 4 and 5 are allowed." 8. On perusal of the draft assessment order and the final assessment order, we note that during the present assessment year i.e. AY 2020-21, the Assessing Officer has accepted the claim of the assessee that

Sondex Wireline Ltd, United Kingdom vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation, Circle-3(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1959/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.1959/धिल्ली/2025(नि.व. 2022-23) Sondex Wireline Ltd., Cody Technology Park, Builing X107, Range Road, Farnborough, Foreign, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant United Kingdom Gu14Ofg Pan Aaqcs-9766E बिाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 3(1)(2), Civic Centre, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate With S/Shri Sohum Dua, Abhudaya Shankar Bajpai (Through Vc) & Ms. Mansha Anand, Advocates प्रधिवािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Ekta Jain, Cit(Dr) सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Sohum Dua, Abhudaya ShankarFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

deemed PE in India. The DRP without appreciating the facts and submissions of the assessee confirmed findings of the AO. Thus, the Final Assessment Order was passed in accordance with the directions of the DRP. 5.1. The ld. Counsel submitted that except for making bald observation that the assessee

Vaibhav Das Mundhra, Kolkata vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 35/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 295(1)Section 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

Jeppesen Gmbh, Germany vs. ACIT, Internation Taxation, Circle-3(1)(1), Mumbai, Maharashtra

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

ITA 1337/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Us Read As Under:

Section 10(50)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

18/11/2025 Date of Pronouncement 29/12/2025 आदेश / O R DER PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the final assessment order dated 24/12/2024 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in pursuance of the directions ... left blank to be incorporated verbatim in italics at the appropriate place in the final order. Pursuant thereto, the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order dated 24/12/2024 under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) treating the receipts as royalty. 6. We have heard both the parties

Sms Group Gmbh, Delhi vs. ACIT.Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 377/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

directions qua each of the objections of the assessee, considering the various details provided by the assessee. The ld AO in the final assessment order adopted profit percentage @17.48% as per audited books of account for AY 2017-18 and brought to tax the receipts on account of supervision

Sunita Grovar, Panipat, Haryana vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Rohta, Rohtak Haryana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3608/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Sunita Grover, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income T-7, Industrial Area, Panipat, Tax, Rohtak Pin: 132 103 (Haryana) Haryana Pan: Afmpg8500N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 147Section 263

three aforementioned entities could not be established with supporting evidences and thus, the said transactions were bogus. The Ld. AO passed the final assessment order on 13.03.2023 disallowing the entire purchase amount of Rs. 3,26,40,355 and 5 adding it to the total income of the Appellant under ... entire purchase amount of Rs.3,26,40,355. The Ld. PCIT passed the impugned order u/s. 263 on 10.03.2025, setting aside the final assessment order and directed the Ld. AO to pass a fresh order. The Ld. PCIT has alleged that the Ld. AO had passed the final assessment order

Sms Group Gmbh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1)(2), International Txation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 993/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

directions qua each of the objections of the assessee, considering the various details provided by the assessee. The ld AO in the final assessment order adopted profit percentage @17.48% as per audited books of account for AY 2017-18 and brought to tax the receipts on account of supervision

Sms Group Gmbh, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle - 3(1)(2) Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3297/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

directions qua each of the objections of the assessee, considering the various details provided by the assessee. The ld AO in the final assessment order adopted profit percentage @17.48% as per audited books of account for AY 2017-18 and brought to tax the receipts on account of supervision

Sms Group Gmbh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1592/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

directions qua each of the objections of the assessee, considering the various details provided by the assessee. The ld AO in the final assessment order adopted profit percentage @17.48% as per audited books of account for AY 2017-18 and brought to tax the receipts on account of supervision

Sms Group Gmbh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1591/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

directions qua each of the objections of the assessee, considering the various details provided by the assessee. The ld AO in the final assessment order adopted profit percentage @17.48% as per audited books of account for AY 2017-18 and brought to tax the receipts on account of supervision

M/S. Gulbrandsen Technologes (India) Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 160/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 160/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S Gulbrandsen Additional/Joint/Deputy/ बनाम/ Technologies (India) Private Assistant Commissioner Of V/S. Limited Income Tax/Income-Tax 405, Synergy Square, Krishna Officer- Industrial Estate, Gowra, National Faceless Assessment Vadodara 390 016 Centre, Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabcg 9006 E (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (") यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mahesh Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/12/2025 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)

learned Assessing Officer ('AO') is bad in law and in facts. Ground No. 2: The learned AO has erred by passing the final assessment order on March 31, 2022 which is beyond the period of time stipulated in section 144C(13) r.w.s 153 of the income

Pankaj Chhatwal, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-49(1), Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 4142/DEL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 23Section 23(1)(c)Section 250Section 27(1)

taking adverse view against the assesse ii) That there is no opportunity for oral hearing as per section 144B given before passing final assessment order. That the appellant craves leave to add add/alter any/all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal

Income Tax Officer, Hisar vs. Neem Chand, Adampur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2404/DEL/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Neem Chand, C/O Babu Lal Surender Aaykar Bhawan, Sector-14, Kumar, 112 Anajmandi, Adampurandi Hisar ( Haryana ) Pin: 125 052 Haryana, India Pan :Ahfpc5351C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250

Officer, Ward 30(1), Kolkata and Anr., WPA 10215 of 2023, held that the order passed under section 148A(d) is neither a final assessment order nor any demand arises out of the same and hence any objection to the order may raise before the Statutory Authority ... Court held as under: "I am also of the view that the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act is neither final assessment order nor any demand arises out of the same. 9 In view of the discussion made above, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition

Umesh Kumar Motwani, Indore vs. CIT(A), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 538/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 144

limited preparation time and increased procedural stress. The assessment proceedings in the present case commenced on 11-07-2018 and the final assessment order was passed on 26-12-2024. The significant delay of over six years in completing the assessment proceedings has caused considerable hardship to me, both

Shakti Hormann Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 917/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.917/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2020-21) Shakti Hormann Private Limited, Hyderabad. Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad. Pan: Aadcs4024Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”) Dated 25/07/2024 For The

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 92C

तारीख / Date of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / ORDER PER. RAVISH SOOD, J.M: The present appeal filed by the assessee company is directed against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “A.O.”) under Section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) r.w.s 144B of the Income ... following grounds of appeal before us: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the final Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act dated 25.07.2024 by the AO and also the order passed u/s 92CA

Sresta Natural Bioproducts Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 711/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.711/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Sresta Natural Bioproducts Private Limited, Hyderabad. The Dcit, Circle-3(1), Vs. Pin – 500 081. Hyderabad – 500 081. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aahcs9571J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca P Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 92CSection 92C(3)

घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT : This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Final Assessment Order dated 03.06.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961, for the assessment ... raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the final Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) and u/s 1448 of the Act Dated 03.06.2024 by the AO and also the order passed u/s 92CA

Gitika Rani Majumder, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 49(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2156/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: us that notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021 is barred by limitation as the same was served upon the assessee on 01.04.2021. The Ld. AR placed before the Bench, a copy of ITBA portal which showed that it was served on 01.04.2025 at 4.02 (Accountant Member)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69

after 1 April 2021 5 Gitika Rani Majumder Learned advocate for the respondent was asked as to whether final assessment order has already been passed or not in this case to which he submits that final assessment order has already been passed. He further submits on the basis of record

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Ms Zyme Solution Private Limited, Bangalore

Accordingly the appeal of the ld. AO and the CO of the assessee are partly allowed,

ITA 1885/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Balusamy, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92C

Accordingly the draft assessment order was passed on 15.11.2016 and as the assessee did not file objection before the ld. DRP, the final assessment order was passed on 27.1.2017. 6. The assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee challenged the selection of comparables which is decided

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Energy Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

ITA 2767/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(3)

Assistant Commissioner of 09/11/2021 Income tax, Central Circle 8(3), Mumbai 2. In the cross-appeals the assesse is challenging validity of final assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C(3) of the Act being time barred as per the provisions of the Act. However, the Ld.AR submitted that ... 114/Mum/2025 C.O. No. 115/Mum/2025 6. 1. On receipt of the draft assessment order, the assessee did not respond. The Ld.AO thus filed final assessment order making addition. 7. The assessee then filed appeal before Ld.CIT(A) against final assessment order dated 02/02/2017 7. 1. The Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated