“final assessment order”

Assessment ProceduresSection 144CSection 144C4,041 judgments

The decision most relied on for final assessment order is Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO (106 ITR 1), cited in 486 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on final assessment order

Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO

106 ITR 1 · 1977 · Supreme Court

486

citing judgments

The principle of finality dictates that stale issues should not be reactivated, and lapse of time brings repose to judicial and quasi-judicial controversies. A Commissioner cannot substitute their judgment for the Assessing Officer's unless the assessment order is legally erroneous, not merely less elaborate, thus limiting revisionary powers under Section 263.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) ltd.

445 ITR 537 · 2022 · High Court

269

citing judgments

The time limit for the Assessing Officer to pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) following directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel is determined by the specific provisions of Section 153, particularly Section 153(2A).

CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd.

376 ITR 456 · 2015 · Supreme Court

221

citing judgments

The requirement to file a certificate or form (e.g., Form 10CCB, 10-IC) along with the return of income for claiming a deduction (e.g., under sections 80-IB, 115BAA) is directory regarding its timing. Such a deduction is allowable if the requisite form is filed before the final order of assessment, as procedural requirements should not override substantive benefits.

Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain

259 ITR 449 · 2003 · Supreme Court

147

citing judgments

Section 144C(4) uses a non-obstante clause to expedite the final assessment order, requiring the Assessing Officer to pass it immediately upon acceptance or lack of objection to the TPO's order, irrespective of broader time limits under Section 153.

Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP

369 ITR 113 · 2014 · High Court

140

citing judgments

Passing a final assessment order under Section 143(3) directly, without first issuing a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) for an eligible assessee, constitutes a fundamental jurisdictional defect. This defect cannot be cured by a subsequent corrigendum, especially if issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C. ET Compagnie v. Union of India

388 ITR 383 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

Failure to issue a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) makes the final assessment order illegal and beyond jurisdiction. Non-compliance with Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directions renders the final assessment order bad in law.

Travancore Diagnostics P. Ltd. v. ACIT

390 ITR 167 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

Failure to issue notice under section 143(2) before finalizing a reassessment order under section 147 is a fatal jurisdictional error, and this defect cannot be cured by invoking section 292BB of the Income-tax Act. Consequently, such a reassessment order is not sustainable in law.

Addl. CIT v. Mukur Corporation

111 ITR 312 · 1978 · High Court

citing judgments

When setting aside an assessment under Section 263(1) and directing a fresh assessment, the Commissioner need not record final conclusions or express final opinions on controversial points. It also interprets 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' as meaning the assessment order is not in accordance with law, leading to the non-realization of lawful revenue.

Judgments citing final assessment order

Sridharan Shanmugam, Salem vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward, Coimbatore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 544/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. C.Vatchala, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144(7)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 69Section 69A

assessing officer u/s 69A. Hence, objection of the assessee is hereby rejected.” Pursuant to the Directions of the DRP, the AO passed a final assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C (13) of the Act dated 30.12.2024 by confirming the addition of Rs.75.00 Lakhs. 4. Aggrieved by the final assessment order

Comer Industries India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle 2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1228/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 234CSection 263Section 36(1)(va)

before the DRP to examine the objections raised by the assessee. DRP drew proceedings and forwarded to the AO. Consequently, AO passed the Final Assessment Order. In this background, where assessment order has attained finality and respondent/Principal Commissioner is not permitted to invoke Section ... statutory provision like Section 263 of Act 1961, unless and until Section 263 of Act 1961 prohibits to examine the Final Assessment order, pursuant to the DRP decision. One cannot go beyond the statutory provision and so also 'read' or 'add' words by the Courts while interpreting a statutory provision

Shree Nath Kripa Foods Private Limited, Riico Industrial Area, Nokha vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO, Ward, Nokha

In the result, the appeal is allowed for the statistical purpose

ITA 198/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Bleshree Nath Kripa Foods Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ito, Ward F-41 & F-42, Riico Industrial Bikaner Area, Nokha, Bikaner - 334803 Pan No. Aamcs 9124 Q Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As Nfac/ Cit(A)] Dated 30.01.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2016-17 Challenging Therein The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Ex-Parte In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice.

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144cSection 92CSection 92E

facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has grossly erred by not passing Draft assessment order under section 144c1 before making final assessment order under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act as the same contains an addition of Rs. 22390614/- under section 92CA

Owens Corning (Singapore) Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT (Int Tax) Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5161/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2023-24 Owens Corning (Singapore) Deputy Commissioner Of Pte Ltd., Income Tax (International Tax), C/O. Owens Corning (India) Vs. Circle-3(2)(2), Pvt. Limited, 6Th Floor, 7Th Floor, Alpha Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Hiranandani Gardens, Bandra Kurla Complex, Powai, Mumbai-400051. Maharashtra-400076. Pan : Aabco5666L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sandeep Bhalla For Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 10-07-2025, Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai, ("Ld.Drp"), Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep BhallaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 115ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234BSection 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)

Pronouncement : 26-02-2026 O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M : The assessee has filed the present appeal against the final assessment order dated 10-07-2025, passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟), pursuant to the directions issued ... alive and to protect the interest of the Revenue. 6. In conformity with the directions issued by the Ld.DRP, the AO vide impugned final assessment order dated 10-07-2025, assessed the fabrication charges received by the assessee as FTS under section 9(1)(vii) read with Article

Samiuddin Aslam, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1225/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1222 To 1225/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20) Shri Samiudedin Aslam Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4) Hyderabad Pan: Ckvpa7727F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The A. O Under Section 153C R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 17/01/2025, For The Assessment. Years 2016-17 To 2019- 20 Respectively. The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds For All The Four Assessment Years. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)

Section 115BSection 132Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

explanation of the assessee and upheld the addition proposed by the A.O. Consequent to the DRP directions, the A.O has passed the final assessment order under section 153C r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act dated 17/01/2025 and determined the total income of the assessee ... assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A submitted that the final assessment order passed by the A.O under section 153C r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act, dated Page

Samiuddin Aslam, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1224/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)

Section 115BSection 132Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

Samiuddin Aslam, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1223/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1222 To 1225/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20) Shri Samiudedin Aslam Hyderabad Pan: Ckvpa7727F (Appellant) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4) Hyderabad (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. आदेश/Order These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The A. O Under Section 153C R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 17/01/2025, For The Assessment. Years 2016-17 To 2019- 20 Respectively. The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds For All The Four Assessment Years. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Respondent: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CA

Section 132Section 144C(13)Section 148Section 153BSection 153CSection 69

No.1222/Hyd/2025 A.Y 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: S. No Grounds of Appeal Tax effect 1 The Final assessment order of the passed u/s 153C rws 144C (13) of the Act dated 17-01-2025 is erroneous both on facts ... issue as the proceedings u/s 148 has not been closed. Technical Ground 3 The Ld. AO erred in considering the fact that the final assessment order u/s 144C(13) passed on 17-01-2025 is barred by limitation u/s 153B of the Act as the notice u/s 153C was issued

Samiuddin Aslam, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1222/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)

Section 115BSection 132Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

Repro India Limited, Lower Parel, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6698/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

show cause notice itself, the Assessing Officer ultimately proceeded to disallow the entire claim of Rs. 35,79,78,081/- in the final assessment order without assigning any independent reasoning for departing from his own earlier finding recorded in the show cause notice. According to the learned AR, the assessment ... reply within the time granted up to 02.06.2021 at 23:59 hours, explaining the Ind AS transition impact and reconciliation of figures, the final assessment order proceeded to disallow the entire amount without specifically dealing with the explanation already on record. 22. The learned AR further invited our attention

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2 1 1, Vadodara vs. Netafim Irrigation India Private Limited, Vadodara

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2006/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92BSection 92C

determine the ALP at NIL and proposed an upward adjustment of Rs.11,00,82,626/. Ld. AO made a corresponding addition in the final assessment order. 2.1. The Assessee company also claimed deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act in respect of its participation in the Andhra Pradesh Micro ... deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act of Rs.28,35,347/= to the assessee and demanded tax thereon. 3. Aggrieved against the Final assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before CIT[A], who considered the submissions of the assessee on the issue of Royalty payment and also earlier orders

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2 1 1, Vadodara vs. Netafim Irrigation India Private Limited, Vadodara

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2005/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92BSection 92C

M/S Mumbadevi Veyhicles, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7899/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarm/S. Mumbadevi Ito Ward 41(4)(2), Veyhicles Room No. 854B, 8Th Shop No. 18, Suyash Vs. Floor, Kautilya Shopping Centre, Nnp, A. Bhavan, Bkc, K. Vaidya Marg, Goregaon Bandra (East), (E), Mumbai-400 065 Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaofm0851F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Dinkle Hariya & Ms. Sruti Kalyanikar, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

substance or did not sustain the proposed concealment in the manner indicated in the show cause notice. It was submitted that the final assessment order does not contain any specific finding that the assessee had concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars in respect of any particular item ... relation to which specific addition. According to the learned AR, when the show cause notice proposed certain variations and concealment but the final assessment order does not specifically sustain concealment on those grounds, the subsequent levy of penalty suffers from lack of proper satisfaction and application of mind

Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2525/BANG/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2026

Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K. J

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234ASection 270ASection 92C

Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is pertaining to Assessment Year 2021-2022 challenging Final Assessment Orders, dated 24/10/2024, passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred ... respect of ECB from INR.75,39,13,371 to INR.62,88,86,271/- vide order dated 22/01/2024. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed final Assessment Order, dated 24/10/2024, making Transfer Pricing Addition of INR.62,88,86,271/- in respect of interest on ECB. 6. Being /aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred

M/S. Ntt Data Global Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 5, Bangalore

ITA 2533/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Chavali NarayanFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K. J

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Pronouncement of order : 23.02.2026 ORDER Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee challenging the Final Assessment Orders, dated 17/10/2019, passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred ... directions of DRP the TPO revised the Transfer Pricing Addition to INR.104,00,59,562/- and the Assessing Officer passed the Final Assessment Orders, dated 17/10/2019, assessing income of the Assessee at INR.309,31,53,514/- in the following manner after making following additions: Particulars Amount (in INR.) Returned Income

Gopal Krishnan Gopinath, Chennai vs. Assessing Officer International Taxation, Bsnl Building Greams Road Chennai

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

ITA 3878/CHNY/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: Mr. Balamurugan MFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 89

judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (supra), which held that if the FTC form 67 is filed before passing of the final assessment order, it can be allowed. However, in the present case, Form 67 was filed much beyond the intimation order. Hence, claim