← 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

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

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

ITA 2367/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)

Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Central Circle 8(3), Mumbai 09/11/2021 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 ... Rs.917,29,45,155/- 6. 1. On receipt of the draft assessment order, the assessee did not respond. The Ld.AO then 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

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

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

ITA 2366/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)

Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Central Circle 8(3), Mumbai 09/11/2021 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 then 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

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

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years under consideration stands partly allowed and cross appeals filed by the assesse stands dismissed

ITA 2365/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

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 passed 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 03/02/2025, upheld

Eaton Power Quality Private Limited, Puducherry vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Puducherry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 231/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 92C

Pronouncement 18.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the final assessment order dated 28.11.2024 which was passed vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2024-25/1070773150(1) for AY 2021-22. 2. The assessee has, inter-alia, raised ... legal ground assailing the final assessment order framed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(3) r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act”) on the ground that the same was time-barred, since it had been passed beyond the M/s. Eaton Power Quality Pvt. Ltd. :: 2 :: timelines prescribed

Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Chennai vs. Saint - Gobain India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the assessee succeeds

ITA 1672/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 92C

Appellant on 22.10.2025 challenging the AO’s order as time barred on the Jurisdictional ground that the Transfer Pricing Order dated 01.11.2019 and Final assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (3) of the Act dated 28.02.2020 is barred by limitation under section 153(1) r.w.s ... 641/Chny/2023 for the assessment year 2016-17 dated 03.06.2024. 2. Thus, the AO has erred in law, by passing the final assessment order on 28.02.2020 which is beyond the timeline for completion of proceedings provided under Section 153(1) read with Section 153(4) of the Act (i.e., beyond

Saint-Gobain India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Ncc 8(1), Chennai

In the result, the assessee succeeds

ITA 1505/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 92C

Appellant on 22.10.2025 challenging the AO’s order as time barred on the Jurisdictional ground that the Transfer Pricing Order dated 01.11.2019 and Final assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (3) of the Act dated 28.02.2020 is barred by limitation under section 153(1) r.w.s ... 641/Chny/2023 for the assessment year 2016-17 dated 03.06.2024. 2. Thus, the AO has erred in law, by passing the final assessment order on 28.02.2020 which is beyond the timeline for completion of proceedings provided under Section 153(1) read with Section 153(4) of the Act (i.e., beyond

Corteva Agriscience Seeds Pvt Ltd Tax (Formerly Known As Phi Seeds Pvt Ltd.), Telangana vs. ACIT, Circle 19(1), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 2575/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92C

Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 in the following manner: “2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned final assessment order dated 30.08.2022 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), being barred by limitation in terms ... void-ab- initio 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned final assessment order dated 30.08.2022 is barred by limitation in terms of section 153 read with section 1440 of the Act and is thus, illegal, bad in law and void-ab-initio

Vama International, Mumbai vs. ACIT 22(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5456/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

material was available before the AO and he chose not to deal with the several contentions raised by the petitioner in his final assessment order, it cannot be said that he had not applied his mind when all the materials was placed by the petitioner before him.In this regard reliance

Pristine Mega Logistics Park Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle- 19(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1450/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2022-23] M/S Pristine Mega Logistics Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Park Pvt. Ltd., Cpc Bangalore, 3Rd Floor, Commercial Plaza, Vs Circle-19(1), New Delhi Wing B, Radisson Hotel, Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037 Pan:Aagcp8465R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ashok Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

needs to be undone and the adjustment made Us 143(1) by ld DCIT (CPC Bangalore which has not been made in final assessment order Us 143(3) needs to be deleted. 3. That Ld CIT(A) is not justified in not deleting the disallowance of deduction

M/S Scania Commercial Vehicles India Pvt Ltfd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 261/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 92C

allowed, and Ld. Assessing Officer was directed to examine the facts and consider the contentions made u/s. 68 of the Act. In the final assessment order in paragraph no. 5.4, the Ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the deprecation on the same amounting to Rs. 2,14,45,821/- holding that whether ... rightly made the addition to the total income of the Assessee as per objection no. 15. This addition is therefore retained in the final Assessment Order. 10. The Assessee submits that during the financial year 2015-16 relevant to Assessment Year 2016-17, the Assessee has created a provision

Ca (Singapore) Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 2078/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawalca(Singapore) Pte Ltd., The Assistant Vs. C/O Ca (India) Technologies Commissioner Of India Private Limited, Income Tax, S1 Wipro Sez, International Taxation, Doddathogur Village, Circle2 (1)(1), Begur Hobli, Mumbai. Electronic City, Bangalore-560100. [Pan :Aahcc8349Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ajit Jain, With Shri, Siddesh Chaugule, Ars Respondent By: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.12.2025 O R D E R Per Suchitra Kamble:

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, with Shri, Siddesh Chaugule, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 270ASection 274

Income Tax(International Taxation) Mumbai, relating to the Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The assesse has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Final assessment order is bad in law and on facts Asst. Year : 2022-23 - 2– 1.1 The Order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s

Raghavendra Ramakrishna Naik, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2027/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Raghavendra Ramakrishna Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Naik 3(3)(1), Mumbai Raghavendra Ramakrishna Room No. 626, 6Th Floor, Naik D-1, Flat No. 7, Navyouak Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, Society, Bhandup East, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai 400042 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051 Pan: (Afapn9077M) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Ms. Manisha Thakkar, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By Ld. Ito (Intl. Tax) Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai-3 Vide Order No. Itba/Com/F/17/2024-25/1072645237(1) Dated 28.01.2025 Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 02.12.2024 For Ay 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Applicant States That The Learned Income Tax Officer Has Erred In Passing The Order Which Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Against The Principle Laid

For Appellant: Ms. Manisha Thakkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

Date of Pronouncement : 16.12.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the final assessment order passed by ld. ITO (Intl. Tax) Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai-3 vide Order No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1072645237(1) dated 28.01.2025 passed pursuant to the Directions

Damandeep Kaur, Mohali vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle-2), Chandigarh

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 902/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

order. Even if the assessee fails to file objections or explicitly accepts the draft order, the Assessing Officer is bound to pass the final assessment order within the time limit provided by the Act. If the Assessing Officer fails to pass the final order within this statutory period-despite ... This, in fact, has not been done in the facts of the present case. In the facts of the present case, a final assessment order has been directly passed by the Faceless Officer without serving a draft assessment order on the Petitioner to enable it to approach the DRP. This

Damandeep Kaur, Mohali vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle-2), Chandigarh

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 901/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025AY 2019-20
Section 10(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

order. Even if the assessee fails to file objections or explicitly accepts the draft order, the Assessing Officer is bound to pass the final assessment order within the time limit provided by the Act. If the Assessing Officer fails to pass the final order within this statutory period-despite ... This, in fact, has not been done in the facts of the present case. In the facts of the present case, a final assessment order has been directly passed by the Faceless Officer without serving a draft assessment order on the Petitioner to enable it to approach the DRP. This

Damandeep Kaur, Mohali vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle-2), Chandigarh

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 900/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

order. Even if the assessee fails to file objections or explicitly accepts the draft order, the Assessing Officer is bound to pass the final assessment order within the time limit provided by the Act. If the Assessing Officer fails to pass the final order within this statutory period—despite ... This, in fact, has not been done in the facts of the present case. In the facts of the present case, a final assessment order has been directly passed by the Faceless Officer without serving a draft assessment order on the Petitioner to enable it to approach the DRP. This

Damandeep Kaur, Mohali vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle-2), Chandigarh

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 899/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

order. Even if the assessee fails to file objections or explicitly accepts the draft order, the Assessing Officer is bound to pass the final assessment order within the time limit provided by the Act. If the Assessing Officer fails to pass the final order within this statutory period-despite ... This, in fact, has not been done in the facts of the present case. In the facts of the present case, a final assessment order has been directly passed by the Faceless Officer without serving a draft assessment order on the Petitioner to enable it to approach the DRP. This

Tmeic Industrial Systems India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 898/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.898/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Tmeic Industrial Vs. Dy.Cit Systems India Private Limited Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aadct5493J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.As, K. C. Devdas, Kranthi Palivela & Mrudulatha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: C.As, K. C. Devdas, KranthiFor Respondent: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254

with the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“Ld. DRP”) under section 144C(5) of the Act (hereinafter referred to as “the final assessment order”), on the ground that it is barred by the limitation prescribed under section 153 of the Act. In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted ... that the final assessment order passed by the Ld. AO on 25.07.2024 is beyond the period of limitation and therefore invalid and liable to be quashed on this ground alone. He pointed out that the time limit for passing the assessment order for AY 2020-21, in the normal course

Gainsight Software Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hydersabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 796/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92D

तधरीख/ : 12.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M : This appeal filed by the assessee is against the final assessment order passed under Sections 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), dated 2 Gainsight Software ... respect of AY 2020-21, is arbitrary, contrary to law, and liable to be quashed. Legal Grounds 2. Final Assessment order is barred by limitation a) 153 timelines On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order dated 13 June 2024, passed

Dsm Shared Services India Private Limited, Hyderabad, Telangana vs. DCIT., Circle 8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1358/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1358/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Dsm Shared Services India Private Limited, The Dcit, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – 500 081. Hyderabad – 500 081. Vs. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aadcd8407C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Aliasgar Rampurawala राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12.12.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA Aliasgar RampurawalaFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C(3)

घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12.12.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT : This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Final Assessment Order dated 23.10.2024 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 ... independent and without prejudice to each other. I. General Ground 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order dated October 23, 2024 ("Impugned Order) passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department ("Ld. AO), pursuant to the Directions dated September

Western Up Tollway Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle -8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 67/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp Nos.67/Hyd/2022 & 493/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Western Up Tollway Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, New Delhi Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaacw6002B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp No. 170/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahua Bharatpur Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Expressways Ltd, Income Tax, Circle 5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecm4426F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Ajay Vohra & Ananya Kapoor राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Three Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Western Up Tollway Ltd (2) & Mahua Bharatpur Expressways Ltd (1) (“The Page 1 Of 38

For Appellant: Advocates Ajay Vohra & AnanyaFor Respondent: : Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT (DR)
Section 270ASection 92CSection 92C(3)

adhering to the DRP Directions vide order dated 21 December 2021 under section 144C(5) of the Act, and hence the final assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) and 144B of the Act dated 12 January 2022 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Assessment ... Erred in not appreciating that the time limit under section 153 of the Act is the outer time limit for passing the final assessment order and hence the final assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) and 144B of the Act dated 12 January 2022 is time barred