“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

Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)_4(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we hold that the treatment of IT services is not in the nature of FTS and cannot be taxed in India. Ground No.25 to 27 are allowed and Ground No

ITA 3317/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Shell International Petroleum Co. Ltd. O R D E R Per Bench : These appeals by the assessee are against the separate final assessment order of the Deputy. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax)-4(2)(1), Mumbai (in short "the AO") passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C ... No.16 271(1)(c)/270A 2. The assessee in all these appeals also raised an additional ground on the legal issue that the final assessment order of the AO is barred by limitation by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case

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

Accordingly we hold that the treatment of IT services is not in the nature of FTS and cannot be taxed in India. Ground No.25 to 27 are allowed and Ground No

ITA 995/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we hold that the treatment of IT services is not in the nature of FTS and cannot be taxed in India. Ground No.25 to 27 are allowed and Ground No

ITA 2307/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

M/S. Shell Interational Petroleum Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1244/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

Perampurna, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 01.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 21.04.2025 ORDER Per Bench : These appeals by the assessee are against the separate final assessment order of the Deputy. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax)-4(2)(1), Mumbai (in short "the AO") passed under section 143(3) r.w.s.144C ... General Ground No.1 Ground No.1 Ground No.1 Ground No.1&2 Ground No.1 Final assessment order passed by AO is bad in law. Ground No.2 Receipts from General Business Support Services ('BSS') does not constitute 'income' Ground No.2 Ground No.2 Ground No.2 Ground No.3 Ground No.3 Receipts from General BSS does

M/S Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (It)- 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7499/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Respondent)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Perampurna, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 01.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21.04.2025 ORDER Per Bench : These appeals by the assessee are against the separate final assessment order of the Deputy. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax)-4(2)(1), Mumbai (in short "the AO") passed under section 143(3) r.w.s.144C ... General Ground No.1 Ground No.1 Ground No.1 Ground No.1&2 Ground No.1 Final assessment order passed by AO is bad in law. Ground No.2 Receipts from Ground General Business No.2 Ground No.2 Ground No.2 Ground No.3 Ground No.3 Support Services ('BSS') does not constitute 'income' Receipts from Ground General

Tupperware India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 462/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT DR

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

under the category of capital financing. This action of the ld TPO was upheld by the ld DRP and adjustment was proposed in final assessment order. The ld AR submitted if assessee is given working capital adjustment and if the same is applied on the margins of the comparable companies ... said provision is contingent in nature and hence, not allowable as deduction. This observation was absorbed by the ld AO in the final assessment order and accordingly, provision for warranty was disallowed while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. The assessee pleaded that the provision of warranty made

Tupperware India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2409/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT DR

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

Pukhraj Singh Gujral, Chandigarh vs. CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 637/CHANDI/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Final Hearing

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Monga, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Dr Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

present case. In the present case, the returns were filed without FTC. However, the same was filed before the 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle1-(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S. Vpr Mining Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad

Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee

ITA 90/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri S K Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 153A

file any objection with the DRP against the adjustments made to the income declared by the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer passed Final Assessment Order on 25.02.2019 u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.153A r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act and determined the total income of the assessee company at Rs.43 ... Aggrieved by the Final Assessment Order dated 25.02.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee, deleted the addition made on account of delay in payment of service tax u/sec.40

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (I) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 32/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92B

MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M. : These appeals are filed by M/s. Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (India) 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(3) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Income ... assessment on 05.10.2017 by making total addition of Rs.2,05,96,976/- on account of upward adjustment of ALP. 5. Aggrieved with the final assessment order of Ld. AO, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that, they are only pressing the following issues

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2130/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92B

Shell International B.V., Netherlands vs. The Asstt.CIT., Circle(Intnl.Taxn.)-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, we hold that the above services did not qualify as FTS under the

ITA 1027/AHD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Section 143Section 153

आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the final assessment order dated 18-10-2023 passed under section 143[3] rws 144C[13] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as 'the Act'] by the Assistant Commissioner of Income ... Grounds of Appeal:- 1. The learned AO has erred on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, in issuing the final assessment order dated 18 October 2023, beyond the time-limit as prescribed under section 153 of the Act. The final assessment order is, thus, time-barred

Faurecia Automotive Holdings, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1247/PUN/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Apr 2025

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Harshad KondeFor Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Date of 15-04-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order dated 30.09.2023 passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining

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

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

ITA 194/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Adp Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle-1(1), Pan: Aanca8983A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ca Kc Devdas, Ca Kranthi Palivela & Ca Mrudulatha Revenue By: M. Narmada, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/04/2025

For Appellant: CA KC Devdas, CA Kranthi PalivelaFor Respondent: M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M: This appeal is filed by M/s. ADP Private Limited (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved with the final assessment order of the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) as per the direction of the Learned Dispute ... which includes the addition of Rs. 27,11,05,479/- on account of ALP and passed the final assessment order U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 254 of the Act on 31/01/2023. 4. Aggrieved with the final assessment order of Ld. AO, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Ground No.1

Aptivaa Middle East Fze, Dubai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1985/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Khirendra M. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar- Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(e)Section 274Section 6(3)(ii)

assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order passed by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai (Ld. AO) under section 143(3) read with section

Transunion International Inc., Mumbai vs. Deputy Comm. of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2698/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Adv. a/w

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 47

issue involved is purely legal. The effective additional grounds raised by the assessee reads as under: “13. erred in not passing the final assessment order within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP Directions were received as per the Section 144C ... admit these additional grounds for adjudication first. 5. The ld. AR at the outset submitted that the final assessment order dated 24.08.2022 is barred by limitation in this regard, the ld. AR drew our attention to the order of DRP which is dated 30.06.2022 and is digitally signed

Ariston Group India Private Limited, Pune vs. The Assessement Unit, Income Tax Department, NFAC and the DCIT, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1680/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1680/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ariston Group India Private The Assessment Unit, Limited, Income Tax Department, 1St Floor, Office No.103, V National Faceless Mayfai Tower, Wakdewadi, S. Assessment Centre, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. Delhi(“Nfac”), The Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Pan: Aaoca7042D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 18.06.2024 For A.Y.2020- 21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ariston Group India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ariston India' Or 'The Appellant) Prefers An Appeal For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Against

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 37(1)Section 92C

demonstrate the receipt of the services. Therefore, DRP in our opinion has erred in invoking Section 37 of the Act. However, in the final assessment order, the Assessing Officer has ITA No.1680/PUN/2024 [A] not specifically invoked the Section 37 of the Act. Therefore, Ground No.6 is not emanating from

Hammond Power Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 76/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Hammond Power Solutions Private Limited (“the assessee"), feeling aggrieved with the final assessment order of Learned Assessing Officer, Hyderabad ("Ld. AO") passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income ... assessment on 24.01.2022 by making total addition of Rs.1,32,90,250/- on account of upward adjustment of ALP. 4. Aggrieved with the final assessment order of Ld. AO, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Before us, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the solitary issue

Expeditors International of Washington, Inc., Washington, Usa vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(2)(2) International Taxation New Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 869/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2022-23 Expeditors International Of Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Washington Inc. 1015 Third Income Tax Circle -1 (2) (2) Avenue Seattle Washington International Taxation, New Usa 981041190 Usa 98104 Delhi Pan No. Aacce4315R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(12)Section 144C(13)Section 234Section 270ASection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Date of hearing: 27/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 09/04/2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order final assessment order dated 23.01.2025 passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) in pursuance to the directions ... issue alive, the panel upholds the conclusion of the AO, following its decision in the earlier A.Y. 6. The Ld. AO in his final assessment order dated23-01-2025 confirmed the impugned additions. 7. Aggrieved, the order of the AO the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal

Jc Bamford Excavators Ltd., England vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 625/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.625/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Jc Bamford Excavators Ltd., Acit Rocester, Uttoxeter, St 14, Vs. (International Taxation), 5Jp, Staffordshire, England. Circle-2(1)(2), Room No.508, 5Th Floor, D-Block, Civic Centre, Pan No.Aabcj6004D Newdelhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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 dated 26/03/2021 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) for the AY 2017-18 pursuant to the directions of the DRP dated 15/12/2020 ... directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”), and without giving due consideration to the submission of the Appellant, thus, the final assessment order passed is bad in law and void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case