“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

Dr. Reddys, Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 490/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Padamchand KhinchaFor Respondent: MS. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “General : 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the final assessment order dated 30 July 2022 (received on 30 July 2022) passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department under section 143(3) of the Income ... same is invalid and liable to be quashed on this ground alone. He has pointed-out that time limit for passing the final assessment order was available up-to 31.12.2019. However, since there was a reference made u/sec.92CA of the Act, therefore, a further period of 12 months was available

Ntt Data Business Solutios Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 489/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.489/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Ntt Data Business The Dcit, Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad. Circle-5(1), Vs. Pin -500081. Hyderabad. Pan Aadci1557Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Aliasgar Rampurawala राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Aliasgar RampurawalaFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144

घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10.12.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT : This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Final Assessment Order dated 26.07.2022 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 ... para 4 of the said circular. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the 23. final assessment order dated 26 July 2022 passed by the Id. O under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act pursuant to invalid

R.A.K Ceramics India Private Limited, Samalkot vs. DCIT Circle -3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 465/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(5)

without prejudice to each other. 1. 2. 3. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1) pursuant to directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'ble Panel') under ... liable to be quashed. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-3(1), Hyderabad is without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of section 144B of the Act and is liable

Urmila Garg, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 47(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1734/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2013-14 Urmila Garg…………………………..………………….……….……….……Appellant Flat No.402, 138 Block-A, 4Th Floor, Gt Road, Howrah - 711102.. [Pan: Adapg1577B] Vs. Ito, Ward-47(1), Kolkata..…………...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 03, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 10, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.06.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

under section 148 of the 1961 Act on or after 1st April 2021. 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

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S.Quintiles Research India Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and the departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 946/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Saklani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153BSection 92C

demand can be enforced merely by passing the TP order. The TPO's order is neither the final assessment order nor is the TPO's order appealable. So, no prejudice is caused to the assessee on passing of the TP order. Further, it is beyond doubt that the assessment order

Quintiles Research (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1025/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Saklani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153BSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Umar Daraj, Meerut vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(4), Meerut

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

ITA 3095/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Umar Daraj, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2)(4), 153/1, Hapur Road, Meerut. Umar Nagar, Meerut – 250 001 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Ainpd8766H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Citdr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Order : 10.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman:

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CITDR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 40A

case under hands is that purchase of live stock is made from cattle merchants and not from farmers/agriculturists.” However, in the final assessment order dated 31.03.2022, the AO completely altered this reasoning. At para 6.5–6.6, he recorded that the assessee was engaged in trading live buffaloes and could

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2022-23 is allowed for 14

ITA 2087/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 270ASection 9

raised the following grounds of appeal for AY 2022-23:- 2. “1 The Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. AO‟) erred in not passing the final assessment order within the time limit prescribed under section 153 of the Act which is the outer time limit for passing the final assessment order ... were given in Assessment Year 2014-15 by rejecting the contentions of the assessee. Pursuant to the directions of the Learned DRP, the final assessment order stood passed in the hands of the assessee company determining total income at Rs 2335,05,11,174/- to be taxable at the rate

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2022-23 is allowed for 14

ITA 2086/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 270ASection 9

Outsystems Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT Circle 2(2)(2) (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1601/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.1601/धिल्ली/2025(नि.व. 2022-23) Outsytems Singapore Pte. Ltd., 41-01, 8 Temasek Boulevard, Suntec Tower Three, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Singapore 389980 Pan Aadco-0528-P बिाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 2(2)(2), Civic Centre, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ajit Jain & Ms. Shivangi Chitlangia Chartered Accountants प्रधिवािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Ekta Jain, Cit(Dr) सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 10.01.2025, For Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised As Many As 13 Grounds. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee At The Outset Submitted That He Is Not Pressing Ground No. 4 Of Appeal Assailing Validity Of The Assessment Order Without Din. In Light Of The 2 Statement Made By Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, Ground No. 4 Of Appeal Is Dismissed As Not Pressed.

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain & Ms. Shivangi ChitlangiaFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT(DR)

Section 14Section 143(3)

ground no. 4 of appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The assessee in ground no. 3 of appeal has assailed validity of Final Assessment Order signed manually by the Assessing Officer (AO). 4. Shri Ajit Jain, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that a perusal of the impugned ... vide directions dated 27.12.2024concurred with the Assessing Officer in holding license fee for sale of software as FTS. The AO passed the Final Assessment Order in accordance with findings of the DRP. 5.1. The ld. Counsel submits that the AO and the DRP have erred in treating the software

Bombardier Inc., Quebec, Canada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1022/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarbombardier Inc, Vs. Acit, 400, Dorval, Cote-Vertu, Circle-1(1)(2), Road West, Quebee Delhi Canada-H4S1Y9 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccb7177J Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, Cas Shri Varun Jain, Ca Shri Mohit Agarwal, Ca Ms. Amulya K. Ca Revenue By: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAsFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR

Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 9(1)(vii)

services rendered duly satisfy the make-available clause provided therein. Pursuant to the directions of the Learned DRP, the Learned AO passed the final assessment order making the same addition of Rs 41,64,62,765/- as FTS taxable both under the Act as well as under the Treaty

Pico Deepali Overlays Consortium (by Deepali Designs Exhibits (P.) Ltd.), Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, both the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 518/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Pico Deepali Overlays Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-17, Consortium, C/O Mna & Co., Delhi Cas, Suite 444, Tower-B, Spazedge, Sector 47, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 018 Pan :Aabap1880F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144CSection 153ASection 92C

ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW, WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND VOID AB INITIO AND IN GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 4. THAT THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PURPORTEDLY PASSED ON 27.01.2022 WHEREAS THE SAME HAS BEEN SERVED ON DDEPL (AS ALLEGED MEMBER OF AOP) ON 08.02.2022. HENCE, THE SAME IS LIABLE

Pico Deepali Overlays Consortium, Haryana vs. DCIT Central Circle 17, Delhi

In the result, both the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 412/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Section 144CSection 153ASection 92C

Morgan Stanley Advantage Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3533/MUM/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Morgan Stanley Advantage The National Faceless Services Private Limited Assessment Centre Building No. 5, Athena Vs. Delhi Mindspace, Sector 30, Goregaon West, Mumbai-400 064. Pan : Aaeca3400B Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Assessee by Shri Madhur Agrawal, CA

Section 270ASection 80GSection 92C

passing of assessment order beyond time limitation prescribed under the Act. The Ld. AR of appellant company raised a ground that the final assessment order was passed after 30th September, 2023 and hence based by limitation and hence to be quashed. During the hearing proceedings, the Ld. AR has requested

Mariappan Austin Prakash, Bengaluru, Kanrnataka vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Intl Txn Circle, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 89/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 195Section 9(1)(i)

aARKE/Date of Pronouncement 05.12.2025 3181 /ORDER PER SHRI S. BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appealis filed by the assessee against the final assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act’) vide order dated 10.12.2024 for the A.Y. 2022-23. LT.A.No ... filed beyond the limitation period, wherein the DRP does not have powers to condone the delay. Ld. AO thereafter passed a final assessment order on 10.12.2024 by assessing the income at Rs.8,28,36,896/- under section 144C(13) of the Act as business income of the assessee. Page

Andhra Paper Limited, Rajahmundry vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 349/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.349/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2020-21) Vs. Acit – Circle -1 Andhra Paper Limited 14-6-9, Admin Office Veerabhadrapuram Kateru Road Rajahmundry-533101 Sri Ramnagar S.O. (Rajahmundry) Andhra Pradesh Rajahmundry (Urban) East Godavari – 533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaact8849D]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

आदेश /O R D E R PER SHRI S. BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the final assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 28.06.2024. I.T.A.No.349/VIZ/2024 Andhra Paper Limited ... international transactions and thereby confirming the order of the TPO. Following the directions of the DRP, the Ld. AO passed the final assessment order on 28.06.2024. 9. On being aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is in appeal before us by raising following grounds of appeal: - “1. That

A & B Associates, Thiruvananthapuram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 643/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by directing the AO to -

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Sr. D/R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

realized the mistakes in e-mail IDs by the beginning of March, 2024, she had not sent any postal communication except the final assessment order. k) Soon after, the contents of the registered post was known to the family members of the partner (who is still abroad), they have initiated

Concentrix Catalyst Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle - 1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 963/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri D Prabhakar Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT(DR)

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

under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") (hereinafter referred to as "final assessment order") in pursuance of the directions issued by Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel - 1, Bengaluru ("Hon'ble DRP") dated 25 June 2024 under section 144C ... year under consideration. VALIDITY OF FINAL ORDER PASSED BEYOND TIMELINES PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 153 OF THE ACT 2. erred in not passing the final assessment order within the time limit prescribed under section 153 of the Act which is the outer time limit for passing the final assessment order

M/S Tdk India Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT Circle 11(1), Kolkata, Delhi and Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2565/KOL/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm M/S Tdk India Private Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1), Kolkata Wbidc Growth Centre, Kulia Aayakar Bhawan, P-7 Kanchrapara Road, Po Ns Chowringhee Square, Sanatorium,Kalyani, Nadia, Vs. 6Th Floor, Roomno.18, Kolkata-741251, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci6950Q Assessee By : Shri Arjit Chakraborthy, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Arjit Chakraborthy, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act.The Ld. DRP directed the Ld. AO to address the same either before passing the Final Assessment order or through Rectification order however the AO has not passed rectification order till date. We accordingly direct the AO to pass necessary rectification order

M/S Informatica Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Rage-3, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3356/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Saklani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271Section 274Section 28Section 37Section 40

With respect to the other addition made by the ld. AO, the ld. DRP upheld the same. Accordingly the final assessment order was passed on 29 October 2018 determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 603,863,180/–. In the final assessment order over and above the transfer pricing