← 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

Naveen Narang, Delhi vs. PCIT (Central), - 3, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1560/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

153A 57,91,510/- 14,35,91,358/- 14,93,82,868/- Naveen 17 r.w.s. Narang 143(3) 3. Copies of the final assessment orders should be forwarded to this office immediately after passing the orders. Proposal for retention of seized material should also be forwarded to this office within ... AADPN0344D 2019-20 153A 3,17,39,700/- 1,88,670/- 3,19,28,370/- Narang r.w.s. 143(3) 3. Copies of the final assessment orders should be forwarded to this office immediately after passing the orders. Proposal for retention of seized material should also be forwarded to this office

L.S Cable India Pvt Ltd, Rewari vs. DCIT, Circle13(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2572/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] L S Cable India Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.28-31, Sector-5, Cirlce-13(1), Phase-Ii, Hsiidc Gc Bawal, New Delhi Rewari, Haryana-23501. Pan-Aabcl3621Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gaurav Garg, Ca Respondent By Shri S.K.Jhadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 01.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

Date of Hearing 01.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 29.05.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the final assessment order passed by the ld. Assessing officer (“Ld.AO”) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated ... order passed u/s 144C(5) dated 23.06.2022 had rejected all the objections raised by the assessee. Finally, the Assessing Officer has passed the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act on 24.08.2022 by making addition of Rs. 13,12,50,050/- as proposed

Volkswagen Group Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. National Faceless Assessment Center, Assessment Unit Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1950/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1950/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Volkswagen Group Technology V National Faceless Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., S Assessment Center, Embassy Techzone, 9Th Floor, Assessment Unit, Delhi. 1.3 Congo Building, Rajiv Gandhi, Infotech Park, Infotech Park Hinjavadi, Pune – 411057. Maharashtra. Pan: Aafcv1368L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2025

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153Section 92C(1)Section 92C(3)

facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. AO / Ld. TPO has erred passing the final assessment order dated July 25, 2024 without appropriately incorporating the directions of the DRP allowing the ground with respect to the mistakes apparent from record resulting in foreign exchange ... only to final order and hence, the entire proceedings would have to be concluded within time limits prescribed. In the present case, the final assessment order has been passed beyond the time limit prescribed u/s. 153 accordingly, the said asst. order is null and void. In view of the said

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Tax) 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4778/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153

144C(3) of the Act is time barred under section 153 of the Act which prescribes the outer time limit for passing the final assessment order. Ground no 4: Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act The learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section ... assessee 1,12,11,826 Adjustment amount 2,25,13,339 2.5. The very same TP adjustment was incorporated in the final assessment order passed by the ld. AO u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144(C) (13) of the Act dated 24.07.2024 pursuant to the directions of the ld. DRP. 7 Australia

Emerson Electric Company (India)Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(2) (1) Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 2323/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh&Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Emerson Electric Company (India) Dcit, Range-1(2)(1), Mumbai Private Limited, Delphi ‘B’ Wing, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, 601-603, Orchard Avenue, Mumbai Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai-400076. [Pan No. Aaace1260B] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 254(1)

pursuance of direction of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 03.06.2022.The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Ground no. 1 Final Assessment order passed in the absence of jurisdiction as per the provisions of Section 144B. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai ('Ll. AO') erred in passing the final assessment order in the absence of jurisdiction as per the provisions of Section 144B, rendering the final assessment order to be null and void. Emerson Electric Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. The Appellant prays

Louis Vuitton India Retail Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4348/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra(Ita No. 4348/Del/2024 (A.Y. 2020-21) Louis Vuitton India Vs. Dcit Retail Private Limited Circle-1(1) 901-A, 9Th Floor, Time Gurgaon, Tower, Mg Road, Haryana Gurgaon, Haryana Pan: Aaacl8230E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 253(1)Section 928Section 92D

Hearing 26/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement 28/05/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the final assessment order dated 23/07/2024 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) pertaining ... vide order dated 30/06/2024 issued directions u/s 144C(5) of the Act. In compliance with the directions of the DRP, a final assessment order came to be passed on 23/07/2024 u/s 143(3) r.w. Section 144C(13)r.w. Section 144B of the Act by making TP adjustment

Harkesh Arora, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle Int. Taxation 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1463/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Harkesh Arora, Dcit, Jp-107, Maurya Enclave, Vs. Circle, Int. Taxation 1(1)(1), Pitampura, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Adlpa6660N अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144CSection 147Section 69Section 69A

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 dated 30.01.2024 for the AY 2018-19 passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act pursuant to the directions of the DRP dated

Parth Enterprises, Bhadrawati vs. ITO Ward-2, Chandrapur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 204/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Mohammed LakkadshaFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 147Section 2(14)Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69

addition under Section 56(2)(x), which is legally unsustainable given that rural agricultural land does not qualify as a capital asset. The final assessment order, however, arbitrarily shifted the basis of addition from Section 56(2)(x) to Section 69, indicating inconsistency and rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid

State Bank of India (Earlier Known As Sbbj), Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer(TDS), Ajmer

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

ITA 173/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 May 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Mrs. Apeksha Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 142Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 253(5)Section 292BSection 5

25th July, 2019- upheld the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The relevant part is as under "the Tribunal set aside the final assessment order on the ground that it was void ab initio, having been passed in the name of a non- existent entity by the assessing officer

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. Piaggio Vehicles Private Limited, Baramati

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 589/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain &For Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

challenged the draft order of Ld.AO before the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld.DRP), but the adjustments/disallowances made by the Ld.AO in the final assessment order were challenged by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) and in the appellate proceedings, the assessee made detailed submissions and was able to succeed partly ... payment of CGF to the AEs and that the credit rating of assessee and AEs has not been substantiated completely. Against the final assessment order of Ld.AO disallowing the alleged corporate guarantee in the appellate proceedings, the finding of Ld.CIT(A) for A.Y. 2015-16 allowing the assessee‟s claim

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 4, Pune vs. M/S. Piaggio Vehicles Pvt.Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 867/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain &For Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

challenged the draft order of Ld.AO before the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld.DRP), but the adjustments/disallowances made by the Ld.AO in the final assessment order were challenged by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) and in the appellate proceedings, the assessee made detailed submissions and was able to succeed partly ... payment of CGF to the AEs and that the credit rating of assessee and AEs has not been substantiated completely. Against the final assessment order of Ld.AO disallowing the alleged corporate guarantee in the appellate proceedings, the finding of Ld.CIT(A) for A.Y. 2015-16 allowing the assessee‟s claim

Kodiyil Mohammed Rijaz, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward Int.Tax, Kozhikode

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

ITA 188/COCH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 147

Hearing : 22.05.2025. O R D E R Per Prakash Chand Yadav, JM : The present appeal of the assessee is arising from the final assessment order of the Assessing Officer dated 23.01.2025, passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and relates to the assessment year ... income of the assessee. The additions made by the AO were affirmed by the Dispute Resolution Panel, and thereafter, the AO passed the final assessment order. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee has come up in appeal before us and argued that the department

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee company is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 457/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Sri PVSS Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Sri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 3Section 80Section 80I

Alpla India Private Limited vs. DCIT ITA 457/Hyd/2022 14 Alpla India Private Limited vs. DCIT ITA 457/Hyd/2022 10. Thereafter, the A.O. vide his final assessment order passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act, dated 23/08/2022 gave effect to the directions of the DRP and determined the income

Hyderabad Infratech Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1856/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana &For Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

23/05/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.: This appeal is filed by M/s. Hyderabad Infratech Private Limited (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved with the final assessment order of Learned Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO") passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 92CA r.w.s. 144C of the Income ... dated 30.09.2019, the Ld. AO finalized the assessment on 28.10.2019 at total income of Rs.14,62,26,118/-. 5. Aggrieved with the final assessment order of Ld. AO, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. Ground nos.1 to 6 of the assessee pertains to the bench marking of interest

Teacher Retirement System of Texas, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )-4(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1371/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalteacher Retirement System Of Texas, C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400028 Pan: Aaatt9387R V/S Acit (It) – 4(1)(2), Kautilya Bhavan, ……………… Respondent G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051 Assessee By : Shri Anish Thacker Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue By : Shri Soumendu K. Dash, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Anish ThackerFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu K. Dash, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234CSection 270ASection 70Section 70(2)

Date of Order - 23/05/2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the final assessment order dated 23/12/2024, passed under section 143(3) r.w. section 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), pursuant to the directions dated ... judicial finality on this issue. 9. In conformity with the directions issued by the learned DRP, the AO passed the impugned final assessment order under section 143(3) r.w. section 144C(13) of the Act computed the net short-term capital gains of INR 47,99,29,138. Being aggrieved

Viacom 18 Media Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 16(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1002/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)Section 153(5)Section 244Section 244ASection 244A(1)(a)

assessee filed objections against the draft assessment order before DRP and DRP disposed the objections vide its directions dated 7/11/2016. The Ld.AO passed final assessment order after considering directions given by DRP on 31/01/2017, assessing total loss at Rs.21,12,96,810. 2.1 The aforesaid final assessment order was challenged

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 stands partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2012-13

ITA 2915/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2012-13

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

Section 10ASection 234CSection 32

under : “The Appellant seeks to raise the following amongst other Additional Grounds of Appeal in support of the captioned Appeal against the Impugned Final Assessment Order dated 13 May 2015 ('Impugned Order') passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax -2(3)(1), Mumbai ('Ld. AO') all of which ... receipt of the draft assessment order the assessee intimated its intention to filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly the Ld.AO passed the final assessment order on 13/05/2015. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-58. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) after

Zensar Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 2445/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2012-2013

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

Section 10ASection 234CSection 32

under : “The Appellant seeks to raise the following amongst other Additional Grounds of Appeal in support of the cancellation Appeal against the Impugned Final Assessment Order dated 13 May 2015 (Impugned Order) passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax -2(3)(1), Mumbai (Ld. AO) all of which ... receipt of the draft assessment order the assessee intimated its intention to filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly the Ld.AO passed the final assessment order on 13/05/2015. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-58. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) after

Zensar Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 4307/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2011-12

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

Section 10ASection 234CSection 32

under : “The Appellant seeks to raise the following amongst other Additional Grounds of Appeal in support of the contention raised against the Impugned Final Assessment Order dated 13 May 2015 (Impugned Order) passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax -2(3)(1), Mumbai (Ld. AO) all of which ... receipt of the draft assessment order the assessee intimated its intention to filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly the Ld.AO passed the final assessment order on 13/05/2015. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-58. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) after

Akshay Jain, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-2(1)(2) Int. Taxation, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated

ITA 5966/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Akshay Jain, Acit, B4/52, 1St Floor, Paschim Vihar, Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), New Delhi. International Taxation, Delhi. Pan No.Agdpj9695F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 149

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 by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 read with 147 read with 144C(13) of the Act pursuant to the directions ... limitation and consequently all the assessment proceedings pursuant to the said notice are void ab initio and bad in law. Thus, the final assessment order passed u/s 144 read with 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act by the Assessing Officer is hereby quashed. As we have quashed the assessment