“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

Hi-Lex India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Gurgaon

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4288/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 144(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

Hearing 10/11/2025 Date of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the Final Assessment Order dated 24/07/2024 passed under Section 144(3) r.w.Section144C(13)r.w. Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) pertaining to Assessment Year ... appreciate the Assessee’s argument against the approach adopted by Ld. TPO while upholding the adjustment of Rs. 1,52,16,721/-. The Final assessment Order came to be passed on 24/07/2024 by making addition of Rs. 1,52,16,721/- on account of payment of royalty. Aggrieved

Rajiv Singh Kushwaha, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-16, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1455/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 144Section 153ASection 263Section 282

Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order on 28.12.2018 and on the very next day approval u/ s 153D was granted and final assessment order was also passed by the Assessing Officer on 7 ITAs No.1452 to 1455/Del/2023 29.12.2018. It is brought to our attention that as per this approval

Rajiv Singh Kushwaha, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-16, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1454/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 144Section 153ASection 263Section 282

Rajiv Sigh Kushwaha, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 16, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1453/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 144Section 153ASection 263Section 282

Rajiv Singh Kushwaha, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-16, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1452/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 144Section 153ASection 263Section 282

Ethan Energy India Private Limited, Hyderabad, Telangana vs. DCIT., Circle 8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1380/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Paras S Savla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 4Section 92C

limitation for completing the assessment is applicable as provided u/sec.144C(13) of the Act. Thus, the learned DR has submitted that once the Final Assessment Order is passed within the period of 30 days from the receipt of the DRP directions, then, it is ITA No.1380/Hyd/2024 7 well within ... thereby the limitation for completing the assessment was available with the Assessing Officer was up to 31.12.2023. The Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order on 18.10.2024 which is clearly beyond the limitation period expiring on 31.12.2023. At the outset, we note that an identical issue has been considered

Epam Systems India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -8 (1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 83/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.83 & 498/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Epam Systems India The Dcit & The Acit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – 500 081 Hyderabad. Pan Aaacw2012R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Shreyas Sardesai राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Shreyas SardesaiFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26.11.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT : These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the Final Assessment Orders dated 28.01.2022 and 30.07.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 2 ITA.Nos ... case and in law, the assessment proceedings in the Appellant's case for AY 2018-19 are barred by limitation and accordingly the final assessment order dated 30th July 2022 ought to be quashed in-limine. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

Epam Systems India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 498/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: CA Shreyas SardesaiFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Repal Renewables Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 481/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.116 & 481/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Repal Renewables Private Limited, The Dcit, Circle-3(1), Vs. Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 081 Pan Aagcr9762B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Harsh R Shah, Advocate & Ca Karan Jain राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri Harsh R Shah, Advocate &For Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 153Section 234Section 234BSection 234DSection 270A

additional ground raised by the assessee reads as under: “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order dated 15th February 2022 is passed beyond the limitation period prescribed by section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and accordingly the final ... case and in law, the assessment proceedings in the Appellant's case for AY 2018-19 are barred by limitation and accordingly the final assessment order dated 27 July 2022 ought to be quashed in-limine. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the final

Repal Green Power Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 474/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.125/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Repal Green Power Private Limited, The Dcit, Circle-8(1), Vs. Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 081 Pan Aahcr2187F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.474/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Repal Green Power Private Limited, The Dcit, Circle-3(1), Vs. Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 081 Pan Aahcr2187F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Harsh R Shah, Advocate & Ca Karan Jain राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri Harsh R Shah, Advocate &For Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234DSection 270ASection 32Section 32A

case and in law, the assessment proceedings in the Appellant's case for AY 2018-19 are barred by limitation and accordingly the final assessment order dated 27 July 2022 ought to be quashed in-limine. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the final ... raised by the assessee reads as under: Additional Ground No. 1: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order dated 26" February 2022 is passed beyond the limitation period prescribed by section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act) and accordingly

Dodla Dairy Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 466/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Aashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 80Section 801BSection 80J

following grounds of appeal before us: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order passed by Ld. Assessing officer ('Ld. AO') pursuant to directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel ('Ld. Panel) under Section 143(3) read with Sections 144C ... CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 dated August 14, 2019. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order dated July 15, 2022 under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) read with section 1448 of the Act passed by the Ld. AO, pursuant

Repal Green Power Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 125/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.125/Hyd/2022

For Appellant: Sri Harsh R Shah, Advocate &For Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234DSection 270ASection 32Section 32A

Repal Renewables Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 116/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Harsh R Shah, Advocate &For Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 153Section 234Section 234BSection 234DSection 270A

Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2933/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

order is bad in law. 2. Time barred (applying principles laid down in decision of Roca Bathroom) and otherwise invalid (without proper DIN) final assessment order dated 31 January 2023, cannot be indirectly & unlawfully revived in the garb of revision u/s 263. 3. Impugned order erred in not appreciating that ... determination of Transfer Pricing Adjustment of international transactions and further giving effect to the directions by the Ld. DRP had passed the final assessment order on 30.01.2023 wherein a total income was assessed at Rs.3030,80,55,490/- by making various additions/disallowances including an addition of Rs.54,32,424/- made

Ajay Pal Singh, Noida Gautom Buddh Nagar vs. ITO Ward 1(1) Noida Gbn, Noida

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

ITA 2253/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaajay Pal Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (1), Village Gadi, Near Dadri Noida. Gautam Budh Nagar - 201 301 Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Axgps6679A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Order : 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 12.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Had Originally Filed His Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.43,88,320/-. Subsequently, Assessee Filed Revised Return On 30.03.2021 Declaring Revised Total Income Of Rs.31,26,700/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). Subsequently, The Case

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 156Section 249Section 270ASection 270MSection 276C

added to the total taxable income of the assessee. Assessee has not preferred any appeal against the assessment order and accepted the final assessment order and whatever refund amount allowed to the assessee was adjusted while passing final assessment order. After considering the facts on record, we observe that assessee

Ceb Llc (Earlier Known As Ceb Inc.), United States of America vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2025/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Ceb Llc (Earlier Known As The Assistant Commissioner Ceb Inc.), 1201, Wildson Of Income Tax, Blvd. Arlington, Va 22209, Vs Circle- 1(2)(1), International United States Taxation E-2 Block, Civic Care Of Address Centre, Minto Road, New First International Financial Delhi-110002. Centre, Level-2 Plot No. C-54 & 55, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051, Maharashtra, India. Pan- Aadct5119K Assessee Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

subject assessment year at INR 47,82,983 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order dated January 31, 2025 passed by the Ld. AO under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act, pursuant to the directions issued ... thus, liable to be quashed. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order passed by the Ld. AD is barred by limitation as it has been passed beyond the time frame prescribed under section 153(1) of the Act. 4. That

Gia India Laboratory Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4395/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Gia India Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle-14(1)(2) 10Th Floor, Trade Centre Room No. 455 Vidyanagari, S.O. Mumbai Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 400 098. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaccg9457G Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri J.D. Mistry & Shri

Section 144C(1)Section 244ASection 80GSection 92C

same, it was argued that the approvals are valid for the current year also. 10. The Ld. DR relied on the final assessment order of Ld. AO on this aspect. 11. Since the Explanatory Note mentioned by Ld. AR was clear, there is no need of issuance of approval certificate

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Asr Multimetals Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals for all the assessment years filed by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 4935/MUM/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025

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

Section 133(6)Section 80I

issued to the assessee. The assessee intimated the Ld. AO of preferring the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, the final assessment order u/s 144(C)(13) was 4 I.T.A. No. 4935/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4933/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4931/Mum/2024 passed on 29/04/2021 by incorporating the adjustment proposed u/s 92CA

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Asr Multimetals Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals for all the assessment years filed by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 4933/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 133(6)Section 80I

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Asr Multimetals Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals for all the assessment years filed by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 4931/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

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

Section 133(6)Section 80I