“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

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

ITA 766/BANG/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

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

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

ITA 764/BANG/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

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

Avana Global Fzco, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax)-1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1788/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-2023 Avana Global Fzco Deputy Commissioner Of Unit No.2002-2004, 2201- Income-Tax (International Tax) 2204 & 2103, 20Th, 21St & – 1(1)(2), Mumbai 22Nd Floor, Building Q 2, Aurum Q Parc Gen 4/1, Vs. Tic, Ghansoli, Thane Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai – 400701. (Pan: Aadcb4021A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Dhanesh Bafna A/W. Shri Hardik Nirmal & Ms. Hinal Shah, Ca Revenue : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna a/w. Shri Hardik Nirmal and Ms. Hinal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 44B

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order dated 27 January 2025 passed by the Ld. DCIT(IT) under section 143(3) read with section 1440(13) of the IT Act, having been passed beyond the limitation period provided in terms of section

Maersk Logistics & Services International A/S (Erstwhile, Damco International A/S), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax (It) Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1329/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kanth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR

Section 115A(1)(b)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) (3). Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order issued/passed by the learned Assessing Officer (AO') pursuant to directions passed by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ... Damco India as per the Network agreement. In the assessment order for assessment year 2013-14 the Assessing Officer while passing the final assessment order reiterated the observations made by the DRP. The Assessing Officer has made no observation that the facts or the agreement in the impugned assessment year

Hazira Port Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Cicle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the above terms

ITA 265/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ankit SahniFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(3)Section 92C(3)

liable to be annulled. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Act dated May 31, 2022 (“Second Assessment Order”) is bad in law and void ... initio since the Act allows the Ld. AO to serve only one final assessment order u/s Hazira Port Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 2– 143(3) for a particular AY, while the same had already been issued by NaFAC dated September 15, 2021 in violation of the provisions

Lotus Footwear Enterprises Limited-India Branch, Tiruvannamalai vs. DCIT, International Tax 1(2), Chennai

In the result all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 800/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T

Section 10A

deduction under Section 10AA of the Act cannot be denied as prescribed under Para 4 of Circular 14/2014 (Refer Page 8 of Final Assessment order for AY 2016-17). 26. Further, the ld.AR relied upon Instruction No.70 dated 09.11.2010 issued by the Department of Commerce (SEZ Division), wherein ... year of commencement of production, which is Financial Year 2014-15, which has also been acceded by the AO (Page 17 of the Final Assessment Order). Below is an extract from page 17 of the final assessment order for your ready reference. 45. The reason why the assessee claims that

Lotus Footwear Enterprises Limited-India Branch, Tiruvannamalai vs. DCIT, International Tax 1(2), Chennai

ITA 799/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.: 20/Chny/2021 &

Section 10ASection 115J

deduction under Section 10AA of the Act cannot be denied as prescribed under Para 4 of Circular 14/2014 (Refer Page 8 of Final Assessment order for AY 2016-17). 26. Further, the Id.AR relied upon Instruction No.70 dated 09.11.2010 issued by the Department of Commerce (SEZ Division), wherein ... year of commencement of production, which is Financial Year 2014-15, which has also been acceded by the AO (Page 17 of the Final Assessment Order). Below is an extract from page 17 of the final assessment order for your ready reference. 1. The first year of operation of Unit

Lotus Footwear Enterprises Limited-India Branch, Tiruvannamalai vs. DCIT, International Tax 1(2), Chennai

In the result all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 798/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.A. &

Section 10A

Tata Communications Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

ITA 3515/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 112Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50

ultimately completed the assessment vide order dated 31.07.2022, passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act. Post passing of final assessment order, ld. PCIT called for and examined the assessment records and while doing so, he found that in the year under consideration, the assessee has sold certain ... claim of the assessee, the assessment order is not only erroneous, but prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Thus, while setting aside the final assessment order, ld. PCIT directed the A.O. to complete the tax rate applicable to STCG. 3 Tata Communications Limited vs. Pr. CIT 6. Before

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1995/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker & Pranay Gandhi, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT D/R

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

order dated 20 July 2022 issued under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) (Final Assessment Order") within the time limit prescribed under section 153 of the Act which is the outer time limit for passing the final assessment order and hence ... Final Assessment Order dated 20 July 2022 I.T.A. No. 1995/Mum/2022 4 which is passed after 30 September 2021 (being the extended time limit as per the provisions of Section 153 of the Act) is time barred and liable to be quashed. The Appellant craves for leave to add, amend, vary

Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi

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

ITA 5256/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendram Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 80G

amounting to INR 257,10,11,680; and INR 35,00,199 respectively. The Ld. AO then issued the final assessment order dated 31 July 2024, incorporating the transfer pricing adjustment of INR 55,24,75,64,890 and making the corporate tax adjustment ... Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the Appellant filed the subject appeal in Form 36, before the Hon'ble Tribunal dated 16 August 2024, bearing appeal no. ITA No. 3274/DEL/2024. Page 3 of 14 ITA No. 5256 & 3724/DEL/2024 [A.Ys 2020-21 & 2021-22] Samsung India Electronics It is noteworthy that

Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

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

ITA 3724/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendram Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 80G

Manpowergroup Services India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Delhi, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3585/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 80JSection 92CSection 92D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI NAVEEN

Whole Sale Cloth Merchant Association, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Kota, Kota

ITA 962/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

appellant in this regard are not found to be acceptable. 4.8.2 Assumption of Jurisdiction by AO is Valid and it remain till final assessment order. It is recorded by the AO that the assessee has not filed any return of income for AY 2014-15. The assessee claimed exemption ... specified in section 139. However, no return of income was filed. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction remained with the AO till passing of final assessment order. The Supreme Court in Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500/161 Taxman 316 (SC) has held that

Whole Sale Cloth Merchant Association, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No

ITA 961/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

specified in section 139. However, no return of income was filed. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction remained with the AO till passing of final assessment order. The ld. CIT(A) referred various plea and confirmed the action of the AO on the aspect of the reopening of the assessment ... appellant in this regard are not found to be acceptable. 4.8.2 Assumption of Jurisdiction by AO is Valid and it remain till final assessment order. It is recorded by the AO that the assessee has not filed any return of income for AY 2014-15. The assessee claimed exemption

Sama Sangeeta Reddy Rep. by Gpa Holder Sama Sunil Kumar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 680/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, KA Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

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 23 ITA.No.680/Hyd./2025 and thus ... quash the final assessment order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer.” 12. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and also by following the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in the case of Raziulla Syed, Hyderabad

Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly

ITA 1390/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: CA Abhiroop BhargavFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 801ASection 801A(10)Section 92BSection 92C(3)Section 92D

Hearing : | 21.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : | 24.09.2025 ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, V.P. : The above appeal has been filed by the assessee against the Final Assessment Order of the Assessing Officer dated 29.10.2024 passed u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], pursuant

Virinchi Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1185/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1185/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S. Virinchi Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaacv6672N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Mrs. U Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 09/10/2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Act, In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Drp Dated 19/09/2024 Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act For The A.Y 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Mrs. U Mini Chandran, CIT(DR)

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

19/09/2024 upheld the TP adjustment proposed by the TPO/Assessing Officer and rejected the objections of the assessee. Consequently, the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order dated 09/10/2024 which is challenged in the present appeal. 8. Before the Tribunal, the learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(1), New Delhi, Delhi vs. Sneh Sharma, Delhi

ITA 2141/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 124(3)Section 143(1)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(15)Section 147Section 195

supposed to first issue a draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) of the Act, but, instead the AO has proceeded to pass a final assessment order directly and this jurisdictional infirmity has been adjudicated by the ld.CIT(A) by the impugned order by quashing the assessment proceedings and holding that

Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(1), New Delhi, Delhi vs. Sneh Sharma, Delhi

ITA 2140/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 124(3)Section 143(1)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(15)Section 147Section 195