← 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

M/S. Securekloud Technologies Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3232/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3232/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S. Securekloud Technologies Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Bascon Futura Sv 5Th Floor, Corporate Circle 3(1), 10/1 Venkatanarayana Road, T. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aabcp6266D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M.V. Swaroop, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 27.09.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 18 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Swaroop, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against final assessment order dated 27.09.2024 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] for the assessment ... value of international transaction. The DRP confirmed the same in the absence of any submissions from assessee’s side. The Assessing Officer passed final assessment order to that effect. 6. The ld. AR Shri M.V. Swaroop, Advocate submits that the assessee filed objections before the DRP against the draft assessment

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. Telekom Malaysia Behard, Malaysia

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2432/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Manju Prasad, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 201(1)Section 250Section 9

objections before the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) and reserving its right to file an appeal before the CIT(A) against the final assessment order. Additionally, the assessee also requested the learned AO to adjust its demand from the tax payments already made by the Indian vendors including ... Malaysia Page 4 of 6 the assessee for AY 2009-10 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The AO Accordingly, passed the final assessment order dated 18 November 2021(received on 19 November 2021) under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 r.w.s 144C of the Act, holding that payments made

Man Truck & Bus India Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 7, Pune

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

ITA 814/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.814/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Vs Dcit, Circle 7, Man Truck & Bus India Private Limited, Pune Level 3, Malpani Agile,Pan Card Club Road, Baner, Pune-411045 Maharashtra Pan-Aaecm6932E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Harsh R ShahFor Respondent: Shri Prakash L Pathade
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

erred in considering the erroneous computation of total income in intimation issued under 143(1) of the Act while passing the final assessment order. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Appellant

Income Tax Officer Ward 3, Satara, Income Tax Office Satara vs. Nandkumar Dattatray Khot, Dahiwadi Man

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

ITA 1562/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.1562/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Income Tax Officer, V Nandkumar Dattatray Khot, Ward-3, Satara S Shri Agencies Dahiwadi, Dahiwadi, Man Satara. Maharashtra – 415508. Pan: Aatpk8947P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Nandkumar Dattatray Khot, V The Income Tax Officer, Shri Agencies Dahiwadi, S Ward-3, Satara. Dahiwadi, Man Satara. Maharashtra – 415508. Pan:Aatpk8947P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Ar Shri Vidya Ratna Kishor – (Dr)(Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 25/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) (Nfac) Under Section 250 Of

Section 132Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 250

document verification through a Verification Unit was rejected. ITA No.1562/PUN/2024 [R] & C.O.No.11/PUN/2025 [A] On May 22, 2023, the AO issued a final assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 1448 of the Income Tax Act. The AO arbitrarily added the entire cash deposit amount

Xl Health Corporation India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 420/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Prathik Rath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

Prashant Maharishi, Vice President 1. These two appeals are filed by XL Health Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. (the assessee/appellant) against the final assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) / Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department [ld. AO] u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B

M/S. General Motors Technical Centre India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bengaluru

The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2748/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tomar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

Prashant Maharishi, Vice President 1. This appeal is filed by General Motors Technical Centre India Private Ltd. (the assessee/appellant) against the final assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated 19.10.2017 for the AY 2013-14 pursuant to the directions

Bhagirath Pakharia, Jhansi vs. Ward 2 (3)(1), Jhansi

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 566/AGR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Apr 2025AY 2013-14
Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

2 आदेश / ORDER Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee have common issues. First, we take up

Miker Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Ward-10(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 849/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Kushal Ltd. and in response to the show- cause, the assessee filed detail response and taking the same into consideration, the AO passed final assessment order dated 28.03.2023 accepting the contention of the assessee that it has not earned any LTCGs and thereby no addition was made and the return

Bravura Solutions India LLP, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

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

ITA 3944/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshbravura Solutions India Llp, Vs. Assessment Unit, P-24, Green Park Extension, Income Tax New Delhi-110016 Department, (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaqfb3843C

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 92BSection 92C

outstanding receivables transfer pricing adjustment was reduced to Rs. 60,57,439/-. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The final assessment order was framed by the ld AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) read with Section 144B of the Act on 29.07.2024 determining total ... raised by the assessee is challenging the action of the ld AO in enhancing the income and the tax liability in the final assessment order which was not even proposed by him in the draft assessment order. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available

Emmsons International Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as

ITA 1931/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwalआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1931/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 बनाम Emmsons International Limited, Acit, Flat No.301, Plot No.12, Vs. Circle-7(1), Zamrudpur Community Centre, C.R. Building, New Delhi. Kailash Colony, South Delhi, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaace0442K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Narendra Kumar Arora, Ca Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr Revenue By सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 22.04.2025 22.04.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per C.N. Prasad, J.M.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

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 Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) pursuant to the directions of DRP New Delhi, dated 10/06/2022 passed u/s 144C

Marie Products Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7, Jaipur

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

ITA 771/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

erred in stating that the show cause notice/ draft assessment order was issued on ITBA prior to issuing of the final assessment order dated 7 April 2021 without providing a copy of the same/ evidence in support of the same and therefore in absence of framing a draft assessment order ... Paragraph 5(2)(xvi) of Faceless Assessment (Ist Amendment), Scheme 2021 and in absence of providing an opportunity to the Appellant, the final assessment order is illegal, bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 15 Marie Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 3. Based on facts and circumstances

Somnath Konduru, United States vs. I.T.O (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 179/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 148

Date of Hearing : 15.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21.04.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G. : This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the final assessment order dated 26.12.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.144 r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] in pursuant to directions ... maintainable in terms of section 144C(2) of the Act. In pursuant to directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer passed final assessment order under section 144 read with section 144C(13) of the Act on 26.12.2023 and assessed total income at Rs.32,26,521/-. 4 ITA.No.179/Hyd./2024

Shakti Hormann Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 452/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita-Tp No.451/Hyd/2022 & 452/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Shakti Hormann Private Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aadcs4024Q] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 21/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Orders Dated 21.07.2022 & 28.07.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (“The Drp”) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. For The Assessment Year 2017-18, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Final assessment order ("FAO") dated 21.07.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the Ld.TPO order dated 27.01.2021 passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act by Deputy Commissioner ... months average rate of LIBOR + 250 basis points instead of 200 basis points adopted by the TPO. Consequently, the AO has passed the final assessment order, making addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment towards interest on ECB. 6. Before the Tribunal, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted

Shakti Hormann Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 451/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita-Tp No.451/Hyd/2022 & 452/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Shakti Hormann Private Limited Hyderabad [Pan : Aadcs4024Q] (Appellant) Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-3(1) Hyderabad (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar राजस्व द्वारा /Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 15/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 21/04/2025 आदेश / Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Orders Dated 21.07.2022 & 28.07.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (“The Drp”) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act For The

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Final assessment order ("FAO") dated 21.07.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the Ld.TPO order dated 27.01.2021 passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act by Deputy Commissioner

M/S. Bharat Beedi Works Private Limited, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

ITA 645/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri E. Shridhar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

cases which included assessee's case as well were placed before Approving Authority which were approved on same day and _ further final assessment orders were also passed on same day itself, it was humanly impossible to peruse records of all 38 cases in one day to apply independent mind ... cases which included assessee's case as well were placed before Approving Authority which were approved on same day and _ further final assessment orders were also passed on same day itself, it was humanly impossible to peruse records of all 38 cases in one day to apply independent mind

M/S. Bharat Beedi Works Private Limited, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

ITA 644/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri E. Shridhar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

cases which included assessee's case as well were placed before Approving Authority which were approved on same day and _ further final assessment orders were also passed on same day itself, it was humanly impossible to peruse records of all 38 cases in one day to apply independent mind ... cases which included assessee's case as well were placed before Approving Authority which were approved on same day and _ further final assessment orders were also passed on same day itself, it was humanly impossible to peruse records of all 38 cases in one day to apply independent mind

M/S. Bharat Beedi Works Private Limited, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

ITA 643/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri E. Shridhar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

cases which included assessee's case as well were placed before Approving Authority which were approved on same day and _ further final assessment orders were also passed on same day itself, it was humanly impossible to peruse records of all 38 cases in one day to apply independent mind ... cases which included assessee's case as well were placed before Approving Authority which were approved on same day and _ further final assessment orders were also passed on same day itself, it was humanly impossible to peruse records of all 38 cases in one day to apply independent mind

M/S Lubrizol India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, DCIT/ACIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee for both AYs are allowed

ITA 6099/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal & (Physical Hearing) M/S. Lubrizol India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Road, Turbhe, Vs Income Tax, Dcit/Acit, Navi Mumbai – 400705. Circle – 3(4), Mumbai. [Pan No. Aaacl 0126 H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Paras Savla Advocate A/W Ms. Rajnandini Shukla, Ca/ Ar Revenue By Ms. Neena Jeph, (Cit Dr) / Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.04.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 254(1)

above-mentioned grounds of appeal at any time before or during the time of hearing before the Hon'ble Tribunal Additional grounds: Final assessment order barred by limitation 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. Assessing Officer erred in passing the final assessment order ... confirmed the order of TPO in its direction dated 05.06.2024. On receipt of direction of DRP, the Assessing Officer ultimately passed the final assessment order which is impugned before this Tribunal. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that in fact the grounds of appeal raised by assessee is covered

Lubrizol India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee for both AYs are allowed

ITA 4630/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal & (Physical Hearing) M/S. Lubrizol India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Road, Turbhe, Vs Income Tax, Dcit/Acit, Navi Mumbai – 400705. Circle – 3(4), Mumbai. [Pan No. Aaacl 0126 H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Paras Savla Advocate A/W Ms. Rajnandini Shukla, Ca/ Ar Revenue By Ms. Neena Jeph, (Cit Dr) / Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.04.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 254(1)

above-mentioned grounds of appeal at any time before or during the time of hearing before the Hon'ble Tribunal Additional grounds: Final assessment order barred by limitation 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. Assessing Officer erred in passing the final assessment order ... confirmed the order of TPO in its direction dated 05.06.2024. On receipt of direction of DRP, the Assessing Officer ultimately passed the final assessment order which is impugned before this Tribunal. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that in fact the grounds of appeal raised by assessee is covered

United Overseas Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3486/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: 09.04.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 153Section 270ASection 37Section 44C

read with section 144C(13) of the Act dated 31 July 2023 is barred by limitation: 5. erred in not passing the 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 31 July 2023 which is passed after 30 September 2022 (being the time limit as per the provisions of Section 153 of the Act) is time barred and liable to be quashed. Arguments on merits 6. erred in concluding that the head office expenses incurred