← 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

Ashok Appaji Patil, Belgaum vs. Intl. Taxation Ward, Panaji

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

ITA 49/PAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A.No.49/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2016-17) Ashok Appaji Patil, Vs. I T O, 3338/1A,Sankalp International Taxation, Building, 3 Floor, Gondhalli Galli, Reac, Belagavi-590001, Panaji-403001, Karnataka. Goa. Pan/Gir No:Aqopp2917M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Letter Dt 1-07-2025. Respondent By : Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Passed U/S 144 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Action Of Lower Authorities Drp/Ao Partly Sustaining The Addition Without Providing

For Appellant: Letter dt 1-07-2025For Respondent: Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.DR
Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

vide order dated 11.12.2024. Subsequently, the A.O. after the receipt of the orders of the DRP, has passed the final assessment order with addition u/sec69A of the Act and assessed the total income of Rs.10,00,000/-and passed the order u/s144 r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act dated

Ssnc Fintech Services India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly

ITA 916/HYD/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, Ketan K. VedFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 920

Date of Hearing : | 26.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : | 03.07.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G. : This appeal has been filed by the assessee company against the Final Assessment Order dated 19.07.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer 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 ... 65th percentile at 22.87% with Median of 20.01%. Pursuant to the Directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer has passed the Final Assessment Order u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) 10 ITA.No.916/Hyd./2024 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 19.07.2024 and made TP adjustment of Rs.2

Boston Scientific India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as

ITA 871/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Boston Scientific India P. Ltd., Dcit, C-40/41, Okhla Indl. Area, Vs. Circle 4(2), Phase-2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aabcg9446Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144C

षणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the final assessment order passed u/s 144C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 22.6.2021 for the AY 2016-17 pursuant to the directions of the DRP dated

Punjab Chemicals & Crop Protection Ltd., Mohali vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 1, Chandigarh

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 316/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 316/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Punjab Chemicals & Crop Protection Ltd. Addl. Cit बनाम/ Milestone-18, Ambala-Kalka Road, Range-1 Vpo Bhankharpur, Derabassi Chandigarh Vs. District Sas Nagar Mohali-140201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-9904-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Anil Khanna (Ca). – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Tarundeep Kaur (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Khanna (CA). – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Tarundeep Kaur (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1.1 Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of final assessment order dated 02-02-2022 as passed by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) pursuant to the directions of Ld. DRP dated

Vaibhav Global Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, CC-4, Jaipur

ITA 1485/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 115QSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 36(1)(va)

passed its direction vide order dated 30.06.2024 and confirmed the adjustments so proposed by the Ld. TPO. 11. Final assessment order, u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13), dated 30.07.2024, was passed on 30.07.2024 wherein following additions, for the year under consideration, were made: Particulars Addition (Rs.) Transfer Price Adjustment ... 115QA 71,99,99,211/- Disallowance of PF amount 19,68,509/- Total Addition 209,47,46,867/- 12. Aggrieved with the final assessment order, the appellant filed appeal before your Honors. Grounds of Appeal: I. General Grounds: 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case

Madkini Hydro Power Private Limited, Dehradun vs. Income Tax Officer- 4(3), Lucknow

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

ITA 228/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2018-19 Madkini Hydro Power Private V. The Income Tax Officer 4(3) Limited Lucknow Flat No.4, Ii Floor 3, Scindia House Delhi 110 001 Tan/Pan:Aaecm1420B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shalendera Kishore Singh, Adv. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 06 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shalendera Kishore Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 144Section 68

TOLA, which inter alia, provided a mandatory issuance of a prior show cause notice and a draft assessment order before issuing a final assessment order, and specifically provided that orders issued not in accordance with the procedure of section 144B ITA No.228/LKW/2025 Page 6 of 13 shall

Mirza International Limited, Kanpur vs. DCIT Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur

The appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 35/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 40A(7)Section 80Section 92Section 92C

Rs.1,78,33,990/- respect of difference in provision for payment of gratuity. 2.3 Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee has now approached this Tribunal challenging the assessment by raising the following grounds of appeal: ITA Nos. 35 & 158 /LKW/2022 Page 5 of 25 1. The learned Assessing ... respect of delayed payment to EPF/ESI. The assessment was completed at a total income of Rs.1,12,64,16,140/- in the final assessment order. 2.5 Now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the addition/disallowance by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned Assessing Officer and Transfer

Nanda Kishore Ravula, Hyderabad vs. ADIT (International Tax)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 552/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.552/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Nanda Kishore Ravula Vs. Adit (International Hyderabad Tax)-2 [Pan :Agupr0664F] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Nikhill Tiwari, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/06/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/06/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.01.2025 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2020-21. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y.2020- 21 On 15.12.2020, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,08,11,550/-. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed Revised Return Of Income On 30.03.2021 & Claimed Foreign Tax Credit (“Ftc”) Of 2 Nanda Kishore Ravula

For Appellant: Shri Nikhill Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 91

present case. In the present case, the returns were filed without FTC, however the same was filed before passing of the final assessment order. The filing of FTC in terms of the Rule 128 is only directory in nature. The rule is only for the implementation of the provisions ... petitioner on 02.02.2021. The respondent is directed to give due credit to the Kenya income of the petitioner and pass the final assessment order. Further, it is made clear that the impugned order is set aside only to the extent of disallowing of FTC claim made by the petitioner

F5 Networks Innovation Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 912/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.53,10,82,997/-. ITA No.912/Hyd/2024 6 3.1 Aggrieved with the final assessment order of Ld. AO, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that, the ground no.1 of the assessee is related to addition on account ... processing the ROI u/s.143(1) of the Act made an addition of Rs.35,45,42,960/- and the Ld. AO also completed the final assessment order by taking income as computed by CPC u/s.143(1) of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that, the assessee had raised objection against

Invesco(India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -2 (1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 111/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, Sriram SeshadriFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Date of Hearing : 11.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G. : This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the Final Assessment Order dated 15.02.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in pursuance to the Directions dated ... disposed of the objections filed by the appellant-company. Thereafter, in pursuance to the directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer passed Final Assessment Order u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) r.w.s.144B of the Act, dated 15.02.2022 and determined the total income of the appellant-company at Rs.39

M/S. Rkr Graphite Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 64/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 68

under section 148 of the 1961 Act on or after 1st April 2021. Learned advocate for the respondent was asked as to whether final assessment order has already been passed or not in this case to which he submits that final assessment order has already been passed. He further submits

Steven Angelo Pinto, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Tax 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the addition so made is directed to be deleted

ITA 922/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2022-23 Steven Angelo Pinto, Income Tax Officer, A-11, Tahnee Heights, (International Taxation)-3(3)(2) Nepean Sea Road, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400006. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan : Aihpp2373C Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mihir Naniwadekar (Virtually Present) Shri Ruturaj Gurjar Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, J.Cit Date Of Hearing : 05-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2025

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, J.CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 270ASection 69A

vide order dt. 25-11-2024 has dismissed the objections so raised by the assessee and thereafter the AO has passed the final assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act, dt. 16-12-2024 and against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before

DCIT(It)-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Murex Southeast Asia Private Limited, Singapore

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1453/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessee filed further objections before the DRP who confirmed the addition made by the AO and the AO passed the final assessment order pursuant to the directions of the DRP. In the final assessment order, the AO has stated that penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) is initiated ... inaccurate particulars of income, in this regard. 6.4 The appellant has further submitted that mere acceptance of additions made by the AO in final assessment order to avoid protracted litigation does not justify levy of penalty. The appellant has claimed that with a view to avoid protracted litigation and considering

Edwards Lifesciences (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6188/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailedwards Lifesciences (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor Commerz – Ii, International Business Park Oberoi Garden City, Goregaon (East), Off Western Express Highway Goregaon (East), ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400063 Pan : Aaacb4203F V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), ……………… Respondent Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, Mumbai - 400012 Assessee By : Ms. Chandni Shah Ms. Riddhi Maru Ms. Kinjal Patel Revenue By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni ShahFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92B

Order - 30/06/2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned final assessment order dated 30.09.2024, passed under section 143(3) r.w. section 144C(13) r.w. section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) pursuant ... income of the Appellant be deleted. Ground on Limitation: 1.2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Final Assessment Order dated 30 September 2024, passed by the Ld. AO under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) and Section 144B of the Act, having

Dcm Shriram Limited, Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, Delhi

ITA 4328/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

Directions) by not 'elaborating and incorporating the details of issue and service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act in the final assessment order as directed by the Id. DRP. The final assessment order, which is in gross non-compliance of the binding directions of Id. DRP, is thus

Jones Lang Lasalle Property Consultants (India) Private Limited, Delhi, India vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 13(1), Delhi, India

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay

ITA 3964/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 & Stay Application No.61/Del/2025 ( In Ita No. 3964/Del/2024 ) Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: S/Shri Nageshwar Rao and ParthFor Respondent: ShriDharam Veer Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(12)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 41Section 92

pronouncement: 30.06.2025 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal of assessee and application for stay are against final assessment order dated 30.07.2024 by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department/National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter ITA No.3964/Del/2024 & SA No. 61/Del/2025 referred as “Ld. AO”) under ... enhanced the TP adjustment to Rs.369,62,68,083/-. SA No. 61/Del/2025 6. Ld. AO vide order dated 30.07.2024 passed final assessment order dated 30th July 2024 against the assessee. 7. Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee preferred present appeal with following grounds: “General grounds 1. Orders passed by Ld. AO /Transfer Pricing

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Dcm Shriram Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 927/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

Directions) by not 'elaborating and incorporating the details of issue and service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act in the final assessment order as directed by the Id. DRP. The final assessment order, which is in gross non-compliance of the binding directions of Id. DRP, is thus

Essar Communications Limited, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle-1 (2)(2), New Delhi

ITA 340/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG
Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)

that they were not willing to approach the Dispute Resolution Panel and reserved the right to appeal before CIT(A) against the final assessment orders. Accordingly, final assessment orders were passed. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessees filed appeals before the CIT(A) The A0, arrived at conclusion

Essar Com Limited, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2)(2), New Delhi

ITA 339/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG
Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)

that they were not willing to approach the Dispute Resolution Panel and reserved the right to appeal before CIT(A) against the final assessment orders. Accordingly, final assessment orders were passed. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessees filed appeals before the CIT(A) The AO, arrived at conclusion

Dcm Shriram Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

ITA 2587/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

Directions) by not 'elaborating and incorporating the details of issue and service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act in the final assessment order as directed by the Id. DRP. The final assessment order, which is in gross non-compliance of the binding directions of Id. DRP, is thus