“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

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 804/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 156

adjudication is required on the same at this stage. 24. With regard to ground no.27, the Ld. AR submitted that while passing the final assessment order, the Ld. AO failed to grant foreign tax credit, despite the fact that the necessary details and documents were available before

Kantar Gdc India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle - 2(1), Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 274/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 156

Analog Devices India Private Limited, Bangalore, Karnataka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Blr, Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1768/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Singh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Srinandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

Pronouncement : 19.03.2025 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal of the assessee is arising out of the final assessment order passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated

Allied Finance P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1452/DEL/1997[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2025AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 144Section 153ASection 263Section 282

Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order on 28.12.2018 and on the very next day approval u/ s 153D was granted and final assessment order was also passed by the Assessing Officer on 7 ITAs No.1452 to 1455/Del/2023 29.12.2018. It is brought to our attention that as per this approval

Sanchore Renewable Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1189/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S.P. ChidambaramFor Respondent: : Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 92C

assessee has raised the following grounds : “ 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the final assessment order dated 11 September 2024 (and received by the Appellant on 11 September 2024) passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department u's 143(3) r.w.s 144(13) read with

Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund A Series of Visplc, Mumbai vs. ACIT (International Tax)-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4657/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 90

Pronouncement 18/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against final assessment order of even date 30/10/2023 passed in pursuance of directions given by the DRP u/s.144C(5) dated 22/09/2023 for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.144C

Tcg Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 706/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 69A

days only, even though the objection was raised by the assessee company and his objections were disposed of by the JAO/ AO and final assessment order was passed on 30.03.2022. The learned A.R submits that there was no speaking order passed on the objection raised by the assessee ... before 28-03-2022, the assessee made due compliance and filed an objection to the draft assessment order on 29.03.2022. xi) The final assessment order was passed on 30.03.2022. 7. The first contention of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee with regard to legality of issuance of notices. His submission

M/S General Motors Technical Centre India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 3345/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Yishu Goel, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal is filed the assessee is arising out of the final assessment order passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated 29.10.2018 for the assessment year

Here Solutions India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 10 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5919/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 92CSection 92D

adjustment proposed by the TPO. Since the assessee chose not to file the objections against the draft assessment order, the AO passed the final assessment order on 05/01/2017 under section 143(3) r.w. section 144C(3) of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee

Nga Hr (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3718/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 92(3)Section 92C

Hearing : 03.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17.03.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by the Assessee is against the final assessment order passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Welspun Global Brands Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2184/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: 2.1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the LdFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

towards interest by treating the excess premium paid on purchase of shares of AE as loan. The AO while passing the final assessment order besides incorporating the TP adjustment also disallowed a sum of Rs.14,02,674/- under section 14A of the Act. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before

Hanning Motors India Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1931/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Revenue by

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)-NFAC"] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, against the final assessment order, passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s.144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] by the Assessing Officer [hereinafter referred ... under Section 92CA of the Act. The TPO proposed a TP adjustment of Rs.6,92,75,149/-, which was incorporated into the final assessment order passed by the AO u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(3) of the Act. 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A)-NFAC, challenging

Namasivayam Arunprasad, Chennai vs. ITO, Intl Taxn Ward-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay application is dismissed

ITA 548/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.548/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & S.A. No. 24/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. No.548/Chny/2025] Namasivayam Arunprasad, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, C/O S. Ramanathan, Advocate, International Taxation Ward 2(1), No. 4, Srinivasan Street, First Floor, Chennai. Mandaveli, Chennai 600 028. [Pan:Adjpn0394E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Ramanathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT

Section 144(7)Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

directed the Assessing Officer by modifying the variation and complete the assessment as per remand report. The Assessing Officer, in his final assessment order, held that the assessee could not explain the source of payment of ₹.8,30,000/- with documentary evidence. Having 3 I.T.A. No.548/Chny/25 & S.A. No. 24/Chny/25 aggrieved ... objections, the DRP directed the Assessing Officer to conduct enquiry under section 144(7) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, in his final assessment order, held that the assessee could not explain the source for payment of ₹.8,30,000/-. But, however, before us, the ld. AR drew our attention

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

mention alleged escapement of income due to bogus unsecured ion alleged escapement of income due to bogus unsecured loans. However, the AO’s final assessment order shifts the entire focus and makes loans. However, the AO’s final assessment order shifts the entire focus and makes loans. However ... final assessment order shifts the entire focus and makes an addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account of alleged an addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account of alleged an addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account

Raziulla Syed, Hyderabad vs. ITO (Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 986/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 195

Date of Hearing : 17.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G, A.M. : This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the final assessment order of the learned ITO- (Intl.Taxn.)-2, Hyderabad, dated 02.03.2024, pursuant to the directions of Disputes Resolution Panel-1 [in short “DRP”], Bengaluru, directions dated ... passed u/sec.144C(5) of the Act. 3.6. Pursuant to the above directions of the DRP dated 29.02.2024, the Assessing Officer passed his final assessment order dated 02.03.2024 u/sec.147 r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act by making additions on account of long term capital gains on sale of equity shares of Rs.53

Nagajyothi Myneni, Hyderabad vs. ADIT., (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 109/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Date of Hearing : 20.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G, A.M. : This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the final assessment order of the learned ADIT- (Intl.Taxn.)-1, Hyderabad, dated 13.01.2023, pursuant to the directions of Disputes Resolution Panel-1 [in short “DRP”], Bengaluru, directions dated ... directions dated 15.12.2022 u/sec.144C(5) of the Act. 2.2. Pursuant to the above directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer passed final assessment order dated 13.01.2023 u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act, by determining the long term capital gains of the assessee at Rs.2,07,67,597/- as against

M/S. Philips India Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1960/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S Philips India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 3Rd Floor, Tower-A, Dlf Park, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 08 Block Af, Major Arterial Chowringhee Square, Road, New Town (Rajarhat), Vs. Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700156, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp9487A Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Shri A. Kundu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT DR

Section 92Section 92C

Dispute Resolution Panel also confirmed the order of the ld. Transfer Pricing Officer on this issue and accordingly, the ld. AO passed the final assessment order dated 29.07.2024, after considering the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel’s direction and thus, made the addition of ₹59,26,41,000/-. 06. After hearing

Sunkara Kotipalli Naidu, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 299/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.299/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sunkara Kotipalli Naidu V. Income Tax Officer –Ward- Chettupalli Village (International Taxation) Narsipatnam Mandal Income Tax Office Visakhapatnam Infinity Towers Andhra Pradesh – 531116 Sankaramatam Road Visakhapatnam [Pan: Dzdps4163R] Andhra Pradesh,530016 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

आदेश /O R D E R PER SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal is Filed by the assessee against the final assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144C(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short „Act‟) dated 28.05.2024 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2024- 25/1065196685 ... response to show-cause notice dated 20.09.2023 assessee filed his return of income on 08.04.2023 which is wrongly mentioned as 08.04.2022 in the final assessment order. Assessee has declared “Nil” Income. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee calling for details. In response

Suresh Kumar Vobbilisetty, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1204/HYD/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Mar 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1204/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Shri Suresh Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Vobbilisetty, (International Taxation)-2 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acgpv5441G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca K Hemalatha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA K HemalathaFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 139(1)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

The Nicoloson Co-Operative Town Bank Limited, Thanjavur vs. Income Tax Officer, Thanjavur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1783/CHNY/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1783/Chny/2024 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Nicoloson Co-Operative Town Income Tax Officer, Bank Ltd., V. Ward (1), No 1120, East Main Street, Thanjavur. Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu 613001. [Pan: Aacft-3931-D] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Alagappan, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. V. Alagappan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 43D

provoking events or any fresh information, the AO has issued a Notice under Section 148 on 13.03.2013 (i.e. after 3 years). In the final assessment order, no reason is given why the case is taken up for reassessment for the second time. The assessing officer has picked up figures disclosed