← 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

Mr. Ravinder Kumar Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1579/DEL/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1579/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2006-07 बनाम Mr. Ravinder Kumar Jain, Dcit, H 82, South Extension, Part-1, Vs. Central Circle 07, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aalpj7172P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

fresh assessment proceedings had not initiated any penalty proceedings. So much so, in fresh assessment order, though aforesaid amount has been included in final assessment order dated 03.09.2021, but no discussion in relation thereto has been 4 RAVINDER KUMAR JAIN made in the assessment order, what to speak of initiation

Sony India Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 22(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3851/DEL/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roysony India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 22 (2), A – 18, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Area, New Delhi. Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044. (Pan :Aabcs1571Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Order : 12.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assesseeis Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 30.07.2024Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144Bof The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020- 21Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Panel u/s 144C(5) of the Act raising following grounds of appeal :- 2 “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the final assessment order is bad in law and void as it does not conform to binding directions of ld. DRP. 2. On facts and circumstances

Haseeb Mohammed Iqbal Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int Tax 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 235/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Haseeb Mohammed Iqbal Shaikh Income Tax Officer, 9/301, Vijay Park Ghodbunder (International Taxation)- Road, Kasarvadavli, Thane, Vs 4(2)(1), Mumbai - 400601 Mumbai (Pan : Bscps9388A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Nishant Thakkar, Shri Rajesh Poojary & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadwala, Advocates Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Assessment Passed Under The Directions Of Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2024-25/1070521602(1), Dated 21.11.2024, Passed U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. Reassessment Proceedigns: 1.1 The Income Tax Officer 1 (1), Thane ("The J.A.O.") Erred In Passing The Order U/S. 148A(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 28Th March 2023 & Issuing Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act On 29Th March 2023 In Violation Of The Provisions Of Section 151A Of The Act Read With E-Assessment Of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022. 2 Haseeb Mohammed Iqbal Shaikh Ay 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Shri Rajesh Poojary and Ms. Jasmin Amalsadwala, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 69A

March, 2023 has no jurisdiction over assessee and therefore the entire proceedings including Impugned notice is bad in law and without jurisdiction. 3. Final assessment order dated 17th December, 2024 is barred by limitation. 4. From the draft order passed u/s. 144C(1), it is noted that ld. AO recorded ... consideration the submissions, took note of certain undisputable facts based on the material on record which is reproduced in para 10.1 of the final assessment order dated 17.12.2024 passed in conformity with the directions given by ld. DRP. In the said para 10.1, the undisputable fact recorded are that assessee

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, Stafford, United Kingdom vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 3(1)(1)Del, Delhi

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

ITA 2042/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2022-23] Uk Grid Solutions Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income St Leonards Building, Harry Tax, Circle International Taxation Kerr Dive, Stafford St16 1Wt, Vs -3(1)(1), Civic Centre, Minto Road United Kingdom-99999 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaica6271A Assessee/Appellant Revenue/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)

contended on behalf of the assessee 30. by the Ld. Sr. Counsel that at the time of passing final assessment order, the Ld. AO has not complied with binding directions of DRP. Raising the question that Offshore supply receipts from GETDIL & SFO Technologies- Ld. AO did not follow DRP directions ... PGCIL contract, which is the basis of addition in the draft assessment order, be deleted. Ld. AO in para 20 of final assessment order observed as follows :- “20. In view of the directions of the Hon’ble DRP the receipts from GE T& D India Ltd. and SFO Technologies have

John Wiley & Sons, Inc., United States of America vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(1)(2), New Delhi, Civic Centre, Minto Road

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

ITA 2029/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2022-23]

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 270ASection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Appellant is debatable provisions of domestic tax law. 5. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order dated January 24, 2025 passed by the AO undersection 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act is barred by limitation ... Ground No.4 of the appeal is not pressed. Hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 10. Ground No.5 is that the final assessment order dated 19.09.2023 was barred by limitation. However, this ground is not pressed, hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed. Ground No.6 is with respect

DCIT, I.T.O. Delhi vs. Rathi Steel and Power Limited, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2720/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.2720/Del/2024, A.Y. 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Rathi Steel & Power Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(1), Chauhan Market, Room No. 221, 2Nd Floor, Madanpur Khadar, C. R. Building, I. P. Estate Near Shopping Complex, New Delhi Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-76 Pan: Aaacr1435K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Mayank Patawari, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal Of The Revenue For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.03.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 68

issue a valid show-cause notice as the time allowed was even less than 2 days and the allegations raised in the final assessment order did not find place in such show cause notices. Accordingly, the assessee could not submit any further document at the time of assessment proceedings ... show- cause notice issued by the AO wherein only 2 days' time was given and the appellant the allegations raised in the final assessment order did not find place in show cause notices issued and accordingly, the assessee could not submit any further document at the time of assessment proceedings

Ecoenergy Insights Ltd ( Formerly Known As Chubb Alba Control Systems P.Ltd), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2321/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaecoenergy Insights Ltd., Vs. Dcit, (Formerly Known As Chubb Alba Control Circle 4 (2), Systems P. Ltd.), New Delhi. Ground Floor, 18, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002. (Pan :Aaaca0031C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Shri Pratik Rath, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Order : 10.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.07.2022Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 147 Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Ay 2018-19 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 92C

hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on the following grounds : 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the final assessment order is bad in law ad void as it does not conform to binding directions of ld. DRP. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case ... final assessment order is invalid as the same has been passed and served upon the appellant by the AU instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), in violation of statutory procedure under Section 144B(1) and Section 144B(5) of the Act. Thus, the assessment proceedings are vitiated

DCIT., Circle 3(1), Hyderabad vs. Rathnamma Infratech Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1235/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

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

Section 142(1)Section 194H

observed that, the A.O. had issued a show-cause notice and proposed an addition of Rs. 12,13,82,048/-, whereas in the final assessment order, he has made an addition of Rs. 25,24,08,811/-. This deprived the assessee from the opportunity of being heard for incremental income

Navneetbhai Ramanlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 223/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.223/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Navneetbhai Ramanlal Patel The Ito बनाम/ 19, New Ambica Park Society Ward-2(1)(2) V/S. D Cabin Sabarmati Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 380 019 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aqzpp 2479 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiren Trivedi, Ar Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 14/10/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Trivedi, ARFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

alleged loss as fictitious. We observe that both in the recorded “reasons” for reopening of the assessment as well as in the final assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act, there is not even an iota of mention as to which particular share

Foster Wheels (Gb) Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, International Tax Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 927/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 245M

reduced the disallowance to ₹38,26,09,777/-. It is observed that, the assessee had preferred appeal against such disallowance made in the final assessment orders before this Tribunal. The details of the provision debited in AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 and to the extent disallowed in the final ... assessment order are noted to be as under:- A.Y. Amount of Provision Amount deleted Amount disallowed in disallowed in draft by DRP final assessment order order

Mrs Shireen J. Dastur, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Taxation Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2204/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Shireen J. Dastur Income Tax Officer, 330, Coral Avenue, (International Taxation), New Port Beach, Ward 2(1)(1), California Vs. Mumbai 92662 Usa (Pan : Ctlpd0257N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Gunjan Kakkad, Advocate Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Gunjan Kakkad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144C(5)Section 234B

Assessing Officer through the draft assessment order but was omitted by the ld. DRP while giving its direction for passing the final assessment order. 8. Assessee had also raised ground relating to inability of determination of cost of acquisition/cost of improvement of the so called capital asset, hence no capital

Cppgroup Services Limited, Leeds, United Kingdom vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi

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

ITA 980/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2022-23]

Section 143(3)Section 234B

failing to grant credit of equalization levy paid @ 2% in the computation sheet issued along-with the final assessment order. 5. Without prejudice, the Ld. AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act in the computation sheet issued along-with the final assessment order ... Treaty and taxed the amount of Rs.89,41,248/-. 5. We have carefully perused the above finding of the Assessing Officer in the final assessment order and we are of the considered view that no tangible finding has been brought in the final assessment order to even indicate that

Wts Energy Dmcc, Dubai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, assessment order is quashed, and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1891/DEL/2025[AY 2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate along with Sohum Dua, Abhyudaya Shankar BajpaiFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234ASection 270A

services beyond providing the manpower, which is contrary to the facts and documents on record. 3.1. The ld. Counsel further submits that the final assessment order suffers from jurisdictional issue as well. The AO while passing the draft Assessment Order gave no finding on the assessee having ... India. However, while passing the Final Assessment order, the AO merely on the assumptions held that the assessee has 5 PE in India. Thus, the AO has gone beyond the draft Assessment Order which is not permissible. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decision rendering

Valji Harji Hirani, Bhuj vs. ITO.(Int.Txn), Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.119/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) Valji Harji Hirani Vs. Ito, (Int. Txn) Meghpar, Nr. Dena Bank, Gandhidham (Gujarat) – 370201 Bhuj (Gujarat) - 370430 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agjph6338K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Smt. Pallavi, Ld. Cit(Dr) : 05/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay)-2018-19, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Dispute Resolution Panel(Drp-2), Vide Order Dated 29.12.2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 18.01.2024. (Ita 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows: 1. The Learned Drp Panel Has Erroneously Applied Section 69 By Focusing On The Conditions Outlined In Section 69 Without Duly Considering The Applicant'S Submission Regarding The Source Of The Investment. It Is Emphasized That The Nre Fdrs In Question Are From Previous Years & Have Been Made From After Tax Income Earned Abroad, As Clearly Stated In The Submission. The Panel Has Failed To Acknowledge The Satisfactory Explanation Provided By The Assessee Regarding The Source Of Acquisition Of The Investment. Shri Leuva Patel Kelavani Mandal

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Pallavi, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 144CSection 144C(5)Section 148Section 69

Rs.1,05,06,635/- to the total income of the assessee as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 13. Ld. AO passed final assessment order making addition of sum of Rs. 1,05,06,635/- under section 69 of the act on account of alleged unexplained investment in Time

Skechers Sarl, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 2028/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234BSection 270A

Hearing Date of Pronouncement ORDER 05.08.2025 03.11.2025 Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of final assessment order dated 15/01/2025 passed by ACIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai for assessment year 2022-23 on following grounds of appeal: " ITA 2028/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2022-23 Skechers ... instead of income offered to tax as per Return of Income ('ROI') at INR 16,93,95,185, Final assessment order barred by limitation: 2. erred in not appreciating that the time limit prescribed under section 153 is the outer time limit for passing the final assessment order, and hence

Kanchan Lalwani, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

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

ITA 484/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 56(2)(x)Section 68

show cause notice dated 19.12.2022, where the Assessing Officer proposed addition u/s.56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act whereas in the final assessment order, the Assessing Officer made addition u/s.56(2)(x)(B) of the Act. We find that the Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice and proposed ... which the assessee has furnished details and argued that the said provisions have no application. However, the Assessing Officer in the final assessment order has made additions u/s.56(2)(x)(B) of the Act without giving further opportunity to the assessee to explain its case. Once the Assessing Officer makes

Dipakraj Krishnamuni Marathe, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Jalgaon

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

ITA 708/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 69A

assessment year 2017-18 contain DIN number, meaning thereby, the DIN was generated subsequent to passing of the order. Thus, the final assessment order bad in law, null and void and thus, liable to be quashed. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case

Kapa Sindhu Mitra, Usa vs. Income Tax Officer (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 513/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.513/Hyd./2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2016-2017 Kapa Sindhu Mitra, 20148, Holly Hock Terrace, The Income Tax Officer – Ash Burn, V A, Vs. [Int. Taxn)-1, Hyderabad – 500 004. United States Of America. Pan Azcpk8030D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri Sashank Dundu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: Sri Sashank Dundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151A

Officer and adding to the comedy of errors, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer who is authorised to deal with international taxation matters passes a final assessment order without either initiating the proceedings as mandated u/s 151A or issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act and thus the Assessment order passed ... clear violation of principles of natural justice on the part of the DRP while passing the impugned Directions dated 23.02.2024 culminating the Final Assessment Order dated 13.03.2024. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Final Assessment Order as well as the DRP Directions are set-aside

Dgs Technical Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1095/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

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

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

Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order dated 18.09.2024 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961, (in short “the Act”) in pursuant ... pursuant to the directions received from the Ld. DRP issued under Section 144C(5) of the Act, the A.O. has passed the final assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) and Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 18.09.2024, and determined the total income

Binayak Tex Processors Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4541/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19 Binayak Tex Processors Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of 384-M, Income Tax, Dhabolkarwadi, Vs. Circle-4(1)(1), 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400002. Churchgate, Pan : Aaacb1554D Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kamlesh Vangule Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

For Appellant: Shri Kamlesh VanguleFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)

Ld.CIT(A) that as per the draft assessment order, income was computed at Rs. 68,33,425/-. However, when the assessee received the final assessment order, it was found that the income was assessed at Rs. 95,86,335/-. It was submitted that the assessee was not issued any amended ... before passing the assessment order and, therefore, the assessee has been denied the opportunity to respond to the AO before passing of the final assessment order. Further, the submissions were made on the merits of the addition so made by the AO. 4. The Ld.CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal