← 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

Anguri Devi Khandelwal (Radha Mohan Khandelwal (Legal Heir), Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle-4, Jaipur

Appeal is allowed and the impugned assessment order, and the impugned order passed by Learned

ITA 391/JPR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT &
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 292BSection 68

heir repeatedly informed the AO of this fact. Despite these intimations, the AO issued further notices under Section 142(1) and passed the final assessment order in the name of the deceased. The Hon'ble Tribunal held that framing the assessment and raising a demand on a dead person, after

Microsoft Global Services Center India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee company is dismissed

ITA 1365/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad06 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 806

Mini Chandran, CIT-DR : 06.10.2025 : 06.10.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M : This appeal filed by the assessee company has been directed against the Final Assessment Order dated 29.10.2024 passed u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] in pursuance to the Directions dated

Sky High Xc Leasing Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1547/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 143(3)Section 234B

interest' and not royalty #10 and #20 7. Interest under section 234B #21 #19 #4 #19 #4 #19 #4 #19 #4 8. Final Assessment Order barred by limitation #4 9. Other Technical Grounds

Sp Armada Oil Exploration Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6575/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailsp Armada Oil Exploration Private Limited 404, Trade Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051. Pan: Aaqcs7983P ............... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani a/w Shri Pratik PoddarFor Respondent: Shri. Pravin Salunkhe & Shri Aditya M. Rai
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 253(1)Section 92C(1)Section 92C(2)Section 92C(3)

Order - 06/10/2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal challenging the impugned final assessment order dated 29/10/2024, passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), pursuant to the directions dated 30/09/2024 issued ... against returned income of INR 31,63,85,208. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, final assessment order dated 29 October 2024 is barred by limitation, thus bad-in-law and is liable to be quashed in-limine. 3. On the facts

Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., Canada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA No

ITA 666/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vohra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 153Section 234ASection 234B

read as under: “1. erred in assessing the income of Appellant at INR 2,42,65,46,501 as against Nil returned income. Final assessment order passed is time-barred 2. erred in not passing the final assessment order within the time limit prescribed under section ... which is the outer time limit for passing the final assessment order and hence, the final assessment order dated 06.01.2025 is time barred and liable to be quashed; Order issued under section 147 read with 144C(13) of the Act following the DRP directions dated 06.01.2025 is void and invalid

Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., Canada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA No

ITA 665/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vohra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 153Section 234ASection 234B

read as under: “1. erred in assessing the income of Appellant at INR 2,42,65,46,501 as against Nil returned income. Final assessment order passed is time-barred 2. erred in not passing the final assessment order within the time limit prescribed under section ... which is the outer time limit for passing the final assessment order and hence, the final assessment order dated 06.01.2025 is time barred and liable to be quashed; Order issued under section 147 read with 144C(13) of the Act following the DRP directions dated 06.01.2025 is void and invalid

Pratt & Whitney Canada (Sea) Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA No

ITA 626/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vohra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 153Section 234ASection 234B

read as under: “1. erred in assessing the income of Appellant at INR 2,42,65,46,501 as against Nil returned income. Final assessment order passed is time-barred 2. erred in not passing the final assessment order within the time limit prescribed under section ... which is the outer time limit for passing the final assessment order and hence, the final assessment order dated 06.01.2025 is time barred and liable to be quashed; Order issued under section 147 read with 144C(13) of the Act following the DRP directions dated 06.01.2025 is void and invalid

Pratt & Whitney Canada (Sea) Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA No

ITA 620/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vohra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 153Section 234ASection 234B

read as under: “1. erred in assessing the income of Appellant at INR 2,42,65,46,501 as against Nil returned income. Final assessment order passed is time-barred 2. erred in not passing the final assessment order within the time limit prescribed under section ... which is the outer time limit for passing the final assessment order and hence, the final assessment order dated 06.01.2025 is time barred and liable to be quashed; Order issued under section 147 read with 144C(13) of the Act following the DRP directions dated 06.01.2025 is void and invalid

Aparna Sandeep Kulkarani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 909/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2015-16 Aparna Sandeep Kulkarni, Income Tax Officer, 201A, Kanchanjanga, Int. Tax. Ward-3(1)(1), Sector 12-A, Plot No.12, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Koparkhairane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Navi Mumbai-400709. Bandra (East), Pan : Axfpk0077M Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ketan L. Vajani For Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-10-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

objections and confirmed the addition so made by the AO u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Thereafter, the AO passed the final assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act, dt. 12-12-2024 and against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. During

Late Shri Jitendra Nagar Through His L/R Smt. Deepika Nagar, Baran vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Baran, Baran

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1382/JPR/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ranka, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

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 ab initio and thus, we quash the final

Fortum Finnsurya Energy Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 7(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn, as indicated above

ITA 2792/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi01 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Vaibhav Garg, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(3)

Hearing : 01.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 01.10.2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR PAREEK, JM: The aforetitled appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the Final Assessment Order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the Learned Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ITA No.- 2792/Del/2023 Fortum Finnsurya Energy

Ltimindtree Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT (2)(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4831/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriltimindtree Limited Vs. Acit, Circle (2)(2)(1) (Formerly Larse & Toubro Mumbai/Cit(A)-Nfac- Infotech Limited) Delhi L & T Technology Center, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor , Gate No. 5, Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Road, Powai, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacl1681P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat- Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 92C

proposed to add Rs. 4,20,051/- on account of variation in respect of TP issue, after considering the assessee’s explanation final assessment order u/s. 144 r.w.s 144C(3) and 144B was made on 19.12.2023 determining total income of Rs. 1738,61,36,771/- after making the impugned addition

Praful Arjun Rane, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Tax Ward-4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1046/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 18Section 56Section 69

Directions of the DRP issued 02.12.2024 Directing to assess u/s 144C(5) of the Act only 18,73,965/- as total income 7 Final assessment order u/s 10.01.2025 Assessing total 147 r.w.s. 144C(13 of the Act income at Rs. passed. 18,73,970/ 8 Appeal filed before ... However, for the second proposed addition of Rs. 18,73,965/-, ld. DRP directed the ld. Assessing Officer to make the addition. Thus, final assessment order was passed by the ld. Assessing 4 Praful Arjun Rane AY 2015-16 Officer by making an addition of Rs.18

J P Morgan Services India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4781/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrij P Morgan Services India Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited (‘The Income-Tax, Circle 2(2)(1) Appellant’) Aayakar Bhawan, Tower A Blk 9, Tower B Blk Maharishi Karve Road, 10, Tower C Blk 11, Nirlon New Marine Lines, Knowledge Park, Western Churchgate, Express Highway, Goregaon Mumbai-400020. East, Mumbai Suburban, 400063. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcd0503B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92D

appeal are as follows: P a g e | 2 A.Y.2020-21 “1. On facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the final assessment order (final order') passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) read with section 144B of the Act dated 22 July 2024 by Assessment Unit ... Appellant, is erroneous and bad in law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order dated 22 July 2024, passed by the Ld. AO under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act, having been passed beyond

Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation -4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4712/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrishell International Dy. Commissioner Of Petroleum Company Income –Tax (International Limited Taxation) 4(2)(1), Mumbai C/O B S R & Co. Llp, 2Nd 17Th Floor, Room No. 1708, Air Vs. Floor, Lodha Excelus, India Building, Nariman Point, Apollo Mills Compound, Mumbai N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai 400011 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaics0357B (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररतीकीओरसे/ Assessee By: Shri. Madhur Agrawal/ Ms. Reema Grewal /Revenue By: Shri Satya Pal Kumar Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Dy. Cit (It), Mumbai Dated 27.09.2023 Passed As Per The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal/For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 2(24)Section 9(1)(vi)

total income at Rs. 2,74,35,00,151 as against income of Rs. 41,23,02,123 offered by the Appellant. Final assessment order passed by the learned AO is bad in law 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred ... passing/issuing the final assessment order dated 31 October 2023 under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act beyond the time limit as presented under section 153 of the Act. The Appellant submits that the final assessment order being barred by limitation is without jurisdiction and void

Ebay Singapore Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2378/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

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

Section 143(2)Section 253

Beena Pillai, J.M.: 2 ITA No.2378/Mum/2022; A.Y. 2019-20 Ebay Singapore Services Private Limited The present appeal arises out of the final assessment order dated 25/07/2022 passed by the DCIT Circle 2(2)(1) for assessment year 2019-20 on the following grounds of appeal: “ Based on the facts ... against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation) Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai (AO) dated 25 July 2022 ('final assessment order') in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel I ('DRP'). Mumbai dated 21 June 2022 ('DRP directions') on the following grounds which

Chirag Kirpal, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 656/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarchirag Kirpal, Vs. Acit, C/O. Anuj Bhatia, C-3, Bali International Taxation, Nagar, New Raja Garden, Gurgaon New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bwxpk8788D Assessee By : Shri. S. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri. S. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

Learned DRP gave directions under section 144C(5) of the Act on 4-12- 2024 confirming the action of the Learned AO. Accordingly, final assessment order stood passed by the DCIT (International Taxation), Gurgoan under section 147 read with section 144C(13) of the Act on 21-02- 2025 determining

Digicert Inc., United States vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(2)(2), Delhi

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

ITA 1177/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardigicert Inc, Vs. Acit, 2600, West Executive Pkwy, Income Tax Officer, Suite 500, Lehi, Utah, Foreign, Circle Int. Taxation,- United States, Utah 1(2)(2), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecd9837H Assessee By : Ms. Tanmayee, Adv Revenue By: Shri. M.S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Tanmayee, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. M.S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vii)

India- USA DTAA. The objections filed by the assessee before the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) were invain and accordingly the final assessment order stood passed by the Learned AO u/s 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act on 13-10-2023. Aggrieved with the same

Income Tax Officer, I P Estate vs. Bansal Insulation Products Pvt Ltd., Okhla Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed as

ITA 2892/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2892/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Bansal Insulation Products P. Ltd. C.R. Building, C-54/3, Okhla Industrial Area, I.P. Estate, Delhi. Phase-Ii, Delhi. Pan No.Aaacb5035F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Co No.79/Del/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2892/Del/2024) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम Bansal Insulation Products P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, C-54/3, Okhla Industrial Area, Vs. C.R. Building, Phase-Ii, Delhi. I.P. Estate, Delhi. Pan No.Aaacb5035F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

after 01.04.2021. then the Revenue, without prejudice to the rights and contentions in any other case, is agreeable to proceeding with the final assessment order dated 27.03.2022 and dropping the subsequent proceedings initiated by way of notice dated 2.6.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S Trishul Developers, Bengaluru

ITA 767/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

authorized representative and officers. The assessment was framed. Thereafter during the appellate proceedings before the Tribunal the assessee took an objection that final assessment order was passed on 31.10.2016 in the name of SPIL which was amalgamated with MSIL. The assessee took an objection that the assessment order has been