“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

Kantar Analytics India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Firefly Market Reserch India Private Limited (Successor of Analytics Quotient Service India Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4733/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

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

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 270ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

Hearing 22.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.11.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The Present appeal filed by the assessment arises out of the final assessment order dated 22/07/2024 passed by Ld.ACIT Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai for assessment year 2020-21 on following grounds of appeal: “The grounds stated here ... Legal 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in issuing the final assessment order dated 22nd July 2024, beyond the time-limit as prescribed under Section 153 of the Act. The final assessment order is, thus, time-barred, and liable

DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Cds Infra Projects Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue and cross-objection of Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1445/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Cds Infra Projects Ltd., B-94, Tax, Circle 4(2), Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi-110020 Pan :Aadcc0273D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)

engineering. For assessment year 2012-13, the company filed its Return of Income on 28.09.2012. The case was selected for scrutiny and the final assessment order in the case was passed on 03.03.2015 at an assessed income of Rs.9,17,64,480/-. Information was received from the ITO, Ward

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Bahwan Cybertek Pvt Ltd, Chennai

ITA 1836/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1836/Chny/2024 & C.O.No.62/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1836/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Bahwan Cybertek Private Limited, Vs. No.148, Bahwan Cybertek It Park, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (Omr), Okkiyam, Thoraipakkam, Chennai - 600 097. [Pan: Aabcb- 2020-P] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) It(Tp) A No.: 22/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bahwan Cybertek Private Limited, No.148, Bahwan Cybertek It Park, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (Omr), Okkiyam, Thoraipakkam, Chennai - 600 097. [Pan: Aabcb- 2020-P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Shri. N. V. Balaji, Advocate : Shri. Ar. V. Sreenivasan, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 : 21.11.2025 आदेश /O R Der Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld.Cit(A)”] For The

For Respondent: Shri. N. V. Balaji, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Chennai [hereinafter referred to as the “Ld.CIT(A)”] for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2017-18 arising out the final assessment order dated 26.11.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre – Delhi, (AO) u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

Florida Retirement System, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation -2(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 1866/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115ASection 144Section 144CSection 234Section 234BSection 270ASection 70Section 70(2)

deducted at source be granted only subject to strict compliance of rule 37BA of the Income Tax Rules. Consequent to these directions, a final assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) dated 27 January 2025 was passed. The assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before

Dsv Air & Sea Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cirle-3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3653/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 253Section 254(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

before the DRP. The Ld.DRP vide its direction dated 18/10/2023, upheld the TP adjustment. On receipt of direction of DRP, the AO passed final assessment order dated 30/05/2024 under section 144C(13) of the Act. Aggrieved by the addition / adjustment on account of transfer pricing adjustment, the assessee has filed

DCIT 3.2.1, Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2830/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

material was before the Assessing Officer 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 material was placed by the petitioner before him." 18. Consequently

DCIT 3.2.1, Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2823/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

The New India Assurance Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2622/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2616/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Lm Wind Power As, Denmark vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4280/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 271ASection 44DSection 5Section 92C

directions issued by the DRP under section 144C(5) wherein they sustained the findings of AO/TPO, accordingly, the assessing officer passed final assessment order dated 29.07.2024 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act. 2.4 He submitted that computation of assessed income of the assessee in the draft ... Total assessed income 81,14,14,893 2.5 He submitted that there is no computation sheet annexed to the impugned final assessment order passed. Further, as per the notice of demand dated 29.07.2024, demand of Rs. Nil has been raised on the assessee.However, on perusal of the income-tax portal

Nippon Koei Co. Ltd., Begumpet vs. ADIT (International Taxation)- 2, Hyderabad

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

ITA 670/HYD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.670/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Nippon Koei Co. Ltd Vs. Adit (International Hyderabad Taxation)-2, Pan:Aabcn8434F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gsv Prasad, Anand Swaroop & S K Mohanty, Cas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri GSV Prasad, Anand Swaroop and S K Mohanty, CAsFor Respondent: : Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 201Section 37(1)Section 40Section 44D

issued its directions under section 144C(5) of the Act on 28.09.2023. Pursuant thereto, the Ld. AO passed the final assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act on 31.10.2023, making the additions on account of Disallowance of interest paid under section

Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation) Circle - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, we hold that the assessee does not have any permanent establishment in India, whether as fixed place

ITA 4092/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 144CSection 9(1)(i)

AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): These two appeals by the assessee, Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd Singapore, arise from the final assessment orders passed for assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22 pursuant to directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel under section 144C of the Income tax Act 1961. In the grounds ... challenges initiation of penalty under section 270A as premature and consequential. 13. For assessment year 2021-22 also Ground 1 alleges that the final assessment order was passed beyond the outer time limit prescribed under section 153 and is therefore time barred. Ground 2 is general. Grounds

Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation) Circle - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, we hold that the assessee does not have

ITA 3178/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Section 144CSection 9(1)(i)

आदेश / O R DER PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): These two appeals by the assessee, Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd Singapore, arise from the final assessment orders passed for assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22 pursuant to directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel under section 144C of the Income ... challenges initiation of penalty under section 270A as premature and consequential. 13. For assessment year 2021-22 also Ground 1 alleges that the final assessment order was passed beyond the outer time limit prescribed under section 153 and is therefore time barred. Ground 2 is general. Grounds

Amway India Enterprises Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Delhi / NFAC, Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5912/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Manish Agarwalamway India Enterprises Private Dcit, Limited, Circle-1(1), Ground Floor, Elegance Tower, Vs. Delhi/Nfac. Plot No.8, Non Hierarchical Commercial, Jasola, Delhi-110025. Pan-Aaaca5603Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 92C

25/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement 20/11/2025 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the final assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act in short) dated 28.10.2024 for Assessment Year ... raised by the assessee were dismissed by the ld. DRP. 3. The AO after following the directions of the DRP has passed the final assessment order on 28.10.2024 at a total income of Rs. 2,75,65,46,220/- by making addition of Rs.1,70,31,42,080/- being

DCIT Circle 1(1), New Delhi vs. Acme Tele Power Ltd. (Now Known As Acme Cleantech Solution Ltd.), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1074/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Dcit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Circle-1(2) D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Addl.Cit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Range-1 D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs M/S. Acme Tele Power Ltd. Circle-1(1) [Now, Known As M/S. Acme New Delhi Cleantech Solutions Ltd.] C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

Assessment Year 2011-12 and other two are the cross-appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the final assessment order dated 19.05.2014 passed u/s 144C(13) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The issues being common, interlinked and inter-connected ... Associated Enterprises (“AEs”) and further adjustment of INR 33,33,195/- is proposed on the outstanding receivables. Thereafter, the AO passed the final assessment order wherein total income of the assessee is assessed at a loss of INR 61,26,35,080/- wherein besides the additions towards the transfer pricing

M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3641/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4478/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1263/JPR/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 10(38)Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

dated 30.07.2022 by obtaining prior approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur. Hyderabad dated 27.07.2022 and consequential final assessment order dated 02.03.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.147 r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act is illegal, void ab initio and thus, we quash the final assessment

Praveen Kumar Diddige, Medak vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sangareddy

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1370/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1370/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year – 2017-2018 Praveen Kumar The Income Tax Officer, Diddige, Medak Ward-1, Sangareddy. Vs. Pin – 502 291. Pin – 502001. Pan Aeapd8792G Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ca Pv Raghavendra Kumar िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: & Ca K A Sai Prasad राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri R. Kumaran, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: And CA K A Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Sri R. Kumaran, Sr. AR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

u/sec.148 of the Act dated 30.07.2022 by obtaining prior approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Hyderabad dated 27.07.2022 and consequential final assessment order dated 02.03.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.147 r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act is illegal, void abinitio and thus, we quash the final assessment ... applicable from 01.04.2021 onwards. Therefore, we quash the notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act dated 01.04.2021 and 27.07.2022 and consequent Final Assessment Order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.147 r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee for the assessment year

Vermeiren India Rehab Private Limited, Tirupati vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 1315/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Bagmar R, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

Date of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G. : The above appeal has been filed by the assessee against the Final Assessment Order of the Assessing Officer dated 17.10.2024 passed u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], pursuant ... passed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 18.09.2024. 5. In pursuance to the Directions dated 18.09.2024, the Assessing Officer has passed the Final Assessment Order by determining the total income of the assessee company at Rs.5,49,30,047/- vide Order dated 17.10.2024 passed u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) r.w.s.144B