← 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

Edenred Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation -2(2)1, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4334/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

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

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

meaning of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The DRP rejected the objections filed by the assessee and the AO passed the final assessment order following the directions of the DRP. 5. The ld. AR submitted that this is the recurring issue and that the Co-ordinate Bench

Fincantieri Spa, Noida vs. ACIT It Circle 2(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3313/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 44D

Pronouncement 28/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against final assessment order dated 20/07/2023 passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) for the A.Y.2020-21 in pursuance of directions given by the DRP dated 28/06/2023 ... income 5 Fincantieri SPA, Mumbai shown by the assessee in the return of income and attribution made by the ld. AO in his final assessment order is as under:- Particulars As per return As per of Assessment income Order Total receipts pertaining to work

Kishan Kumar Bajaj, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-32, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all 7

ITA 2602/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri V. K. Sabharwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 281B

examine the approval dated 27.09.2021, we find that in para 3, the ld. competent authority has mentioned as follows:- “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

Sridharan Venkatanarayanan, Secunderabad vs. DCIT., Circle- 12(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.32/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Sridharan Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Venkatanarayanan Income Tax, Circle 12(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bgaps6316N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A V. Balaji राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: C.A V. BalajiFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 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

Purpletalk India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 193/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA PVSS PrasadFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234ASection 37(1)Section 92C

Date of Hearing : | 31.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement : | 27.03.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G, A.M. : This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the final assessment order dated 30.03.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.143(3) r-w.s.144C(13) r.w.s.143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Income ... Pursuant to directions of the DRP issued under section 144C(5) of the Act dated 18.02.2021, the Assessing Officer has passed Final Assessment Order dated 30.03.2021 u/sec.143(3) r-w.s.144C(13) r.w.s.143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and determined total income at Rs.8

ITO Ward 41(1)(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc vs. Arvind Velji Gada, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue

ITA 2026/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Arvind Velji Gada, Ito Ward 41(1)(1), 1704 12Th Floor, Bellezza Tower, Kautilya Bhavan, Avenue 3, Near Vs. 420, Bhavani Shankar Road, Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc, Dadar (West) Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Mumbai-400028. East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aespg 4212 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ito Ward 41(1)(1), Arvind Velji Gada, Kautilya Bhavan, Avenue 3, 1704 12Th Floor, Bellezza Tower, 420, Vs. Near Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bhavani Shankar Road, Dadar Bkc, Bandra Kurla Complex, (West) Bandra East, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aespg 4212 Q Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Ajay R Singh/
Section 68

entire reopening law and therefore is quashed. Consequently, the entire reopening law and therefore is quashed. Consequently, the entire reopening proceedings and impugned final assessment order passed proceedings and impugned final assessment order passed proceedings and impugned final assessment order passed under section 147 r/w section 144C

Arvind Velji Gada, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue

ITA 1582/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Arvind Velji Gada, Ito Ward 41(1)(1), 1704 12Th Floor, Bellezza Tower, Kautilya Bhavan, Avenue 3, Near Vs. 420, Bhavani Shankar Road, Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc, Dadar (West) Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Mumbai-400028. East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aespg 4212 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ito Ward 41(1)(1), Arvind Velji Gada, Kautilya Bhavan, Avenue 3, 1704 12Th Floor, Bellezza Tower, 420, Vs. Near Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bhavani Shankar Road, Dadar Bkc, Bandra Kurla Complex, (West) Bandra East, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aespg 4212 Q Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Ajay R Singh/
Section 68

entire reopening law and therefore is quashed. Consequently, the entire reopening law and therefore is quashed. Consequently, the entire reopening proceedings and impugned final assessment order passed proceedings and impugned final assessment order passed proceedings and impugned final assessment order passed under section 147 r/w section 144C

Centrient Pharmaceuticals India Private Limited, Punjab vs. DCIT/ ACIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 1201/CHANDI/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1201/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Sh. Darpan Kirpalani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Shrma, CIT, D.R. (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(10)Section 153(1)Section 253(1)(d)

according to law to law.” 3. At the very outset, the ld. counsel of the assessee pressed the legal grounds taken that the final assessment order is bad in law and void as it does not confirm to binding directions of A.Y. 2021-22 7 ld. DRP. He referred ... Astemo Haryana Pvt. A.Y. 2021-22 11 Ltd. case (supra). Relevant portions of the Hitachi order are reproduced as under: “AO in his final assessment order commented that DRP's directions to the TPO/has to be given effect by the TPO and the same was communicated to the TPO requesting

M/S. Sp Imperial Star Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 3(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5862/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI. AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92Section 948Section 94B

Pronouncement : 26.03.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the final assessment order of the learned Assessing Officer (‘ld. AO’ for short), dated 19.09.2024, passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income ... that point of time, therefore, such transaction per se should be considered as at Arm's Length Price. 12. The final assessment order dated 19.09.2024 is time barred and therefore, bad in law and ought to be quashed.” 3. As the additional grounds raised by the assessee requires

Jsw Energy Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed partly for statistical

ITA 3714/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR/
Section 115JSection 14ASection 37Section 80I

ORDER JSW Energy Ltd ITA Nos.3714 & 3713/MUM/2024 PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM The captioned appeals by the assessee(s) are directed against respective final assessment orders dated 12.06.2024 and 27.05.2024, passed by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax, Central Circle 8(3), Mumbai [in short 'the Ld. Assessing Officer ... which were disposed off on 30.05.2024. Pursuant to the direction of the Ld. DRP, the Assessing Officer passed the impugned final assessment order on 12.06.2024. Aggrieved with the impugned final assessment order, the assessee is in appeal before us by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 6. Before

Jsw Energy (Barmer) Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed partly for statistical

ITA 3713/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR/For Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Kabra
Section 14A

direction of the Ld. DRP, the Assessing Officer passed the impugned final Assessing Officer passed the impugned final Assessing Officer passed the impugned final assessment order on 12.06.2024. A assessment order on 12.06.2024. Aggrieved with the impugned final the impugned final assessment order, the assessment order, the assessee ... from 19/07/2010 to 25/2/2020, from 19/07/2010 to 25/2/2020, which is available on page which is available on pages 7 to 9 of the final assessment order. of the final assessment order. 7.2 The assessee benchmarked the international transaction of The assessee benchmarked the international transaction of The assessee benchmarked

Cvent India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in both the A

ITA 187/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: ShriDheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. DR
Section 92CSection 92D

operating item. The TPO also treated recovery of expenses as part of P/L A/c and applied mark-up on the same. The final assessment order dated 25.03.2014 was passed confirming the adjustment made by the TPO and notice of demand was sent to the assessee raising tax demand

Dynapac Road Construction Equipment (India) Private Limited, Pune vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed as ‘withdrawn’

ITA 2627/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2627/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Dynapac Road Construction Vs. The Assessment Unit, Equipment (India) Private Income Tax Department, Limited, Nfac, Delhi. Plot No.1, Gat No.163 (Part), 164 – 168, Alandi Market Road, Village- Fulgaon, Taluka- Haveli, Dist. Pune- 412216. Pan : Aagcd1573N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Akshay Nagrajan (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Prakash L. Pathade Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 23.10.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. When The Matter Was Called For Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Filed An Application Seeking Withdrawal Of The Above Captioned Appeal In The Light Of The Fact That The Assessee Has Opted

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Nagrajan (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade
Section 143(3)

Date of hearing : 12.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against final assessment order dated 23.10.2024 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the IT Act for the assessment year 2021-22. 2. When the matter

Liquidhub Analytics Pvt. Ltd. (Now Merged With Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd), Pune vs. NFAC, Pune

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

ITA 1952/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Smt Nilu Jaggi, CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

therefore, bad in law and be struck down and annulled 4. The Ld. AD erred in passing the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) dated July 26, 2024 on the name of the Appellant company which has ceased to exist pursuant to the merger with Capgemini Technology ... Services Ltd, Microland Ltd and CES Ltd. Grounds of Appeal with respect to Corporate Tax Adjustment 6 The Ld. AO, while passing the final assessment order, has grossly erred in taxing long term capital gains amounting to INR 3,26,81,816 at an incorrect rate of 25% instead

Coesia India Private Limited, Pune vs. The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, NFAC and the DCIT, Circle 8, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed as ‘withdrawn’

ITA 1713/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1713/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Coesia India Private Vs. The Assessment Unit, Limited, Income Tax Department, Plot No.49 & 50, Gate Nfac, Delhi. No.343, Village Mahalunge, Taluka Khed, Pune- 410501. Pan : Aadcv0606P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Akshay Nagrajan (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Prakash L. Pathade Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 21.06.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. When The Matter Was Called For Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Filed An Application Seeking Withdrawal Of The Above Captioned Appeal In The Light Of The Fact That The Assessee Has Opted For Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 & In This Regard Copy Of Form 1 Dtvsvs, 2024 Was Also Filed By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Nagrajan (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade
Section 143(3)

Date of hearing : 12.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against final assessment order dated 21.06.2024 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the IT Act for the assessment year 2021-22. 2. When the matter

Oswald Raphael Misquitta, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int Tax, Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 6515/MUM/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: This Bench On 26/05/2025. 2 Oswald Raphael Misquitta Thus, The Permission Should Be Granted To Withdraw The Aforesaid Appeal. Accordingly, The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Dismissed As Withdrawn.

Section 144C(5)

Pronouncement 25/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against final assessment order dated 29/03/2024, passed in pursuance of the directions given by the DRP vide order dated 05/12/2024 for the quantum of assessment passed u/s. 144C

M /S. Dmi Ltd, Mauritius vs. ACIT Int Tax Circle 2(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 603/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Pronouncement 25/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against final assessment order dated 27/01/2022, passed in pursuance of the directions given by the DRP vide order dated 25/01/2022 for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s

Universal Drinks, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-42(1), New Delhi

ITA 2283/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi25 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No.2283/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) Raheja Developers Limited Vs Acit W4D-204/5, Keshav Kunj, Central Circle-19 Cariappa Marg, Sainik Farms, New Delhi New Delhi, Pan: Aaacr0468E Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No.2284/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) Raheja Developers Limited Vs Acit W4D-204/5, Keshavkunj, Central Circle-19 Cariappa Marg, Sainik Farms, New Delhi New Delhi, Pan: Aaacr0468E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Neeraj Jain, Ca& Sh. P. K. Mishra, Ca Revenue By Ms.Pooja Swaroop, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 68

deliberately filed the objection at the fag end of the assessment proceedings. The said objection has been decided by the A.O. in the final assessment order, therefore, the Ground No. 4 of the Assessee requires to be dismissed. 15. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available

Utv Software Communications Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2524/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Utv Software Communications The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax, Circle – 16(1) Room No. 467, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Star House, Urmi Estate, 95, Ganpatrao Vs. Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400 013. Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacu4122G (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Simran Keswani Respondent By : Shri. Pankaj Kumar, (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.07.2022 Of The Learned Assessing Officer (‘Ld. Ao’ For Short), Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pursuant To The Direction Of The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Hon'Ble Drp’ For Short) Dated 29.06.2022 U/S. 144C(5) Of The Act, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Intends To Withdraw The Present Appeal & Had Made A Written Submission On March, 2025 To That Effect Stating That The Assessee Has Opted To Settle The Dispute Utv Software Communications Private Limited Through The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 Along With The Relevant Forms As Per The Dtvsv 2024 Scheme. 3. Upon Perusal Of The Same, We Deem It Fit To Dismiss The Appeal Filed By The Assessee As Withdrawn With The Liberty That The Assessee May Revive The Appeal If The Same Has Not Been Settled In The Dtvsv Scheme, If & When Necessary. 4. In The Result, The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Dismissed As Withdrawn. Order Pronounced In The Open Court On 24.03.2025 (Narendra Kumar Billaiya)Mumbai; Dated: 24.03.2025 Karishma J. Pawar (Stenographer) Copy Of The Order Forwarded To: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. Cit- Concerned 4. Dr, Itat, Mumbai 5. Guard File By Order

For Appellant: Ms. Simran KeswaniFor Respondent: Shri. Pankaj Kumar, (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Pronouncement : 24.03.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the final assessment order dated 30.07.2022 of the learned Assessing Officer (‘ld. AO’ for short), passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income

Standard and Poors South Asia Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3792/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 928Section 92C

Date of Order : 21.03.2025 O R D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM : 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the final assessment order dated 29.06.2024 passed u/s 144 r.w.s.144C (13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) subsequent to the directions