← 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

Sunny Tarunkumar Doshi, Jetpur vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 288/AHD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 56(1)(vii)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

reassessment proceedings on the grounds of "inadequate consideration" as well as S.69 of the Act related to the purchase of immovable property. - The final assessment order made an addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) on the grounds of "without consideration", deviating from the original reasons for reopening. Moreover, when

Vvf (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department National Faceless Assessment Centre, Mumbai

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

ITA 4840/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2Section 92B

Date of Hearing 22/01/2025 Date of Pronouncement 14/02/2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: Present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of final assessment order dated 25/07/2024, passed under section 2 ITA 4840/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2020-21 143(3) read with section 144C(13) by the Assessment Unit, for assessment ... direction had allowed the claim of brought forward and set off of losses which has not been followed by parting the final assessment order. He prayed for directions to the Ld.AO to compute as per the DRP directions. 13.1. On perusal of the objection raised before the DRP as well

Aveva Information Technology India Private Limited (Successor of Aveva Software Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 4813/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4813/Mum/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-2021) Aveva Information Technology Vs. Dcit, Circle-15(1)(1), India Private Limited(Successor Mumbai Of Aveva Software Pvt. Ltd.) Unit No.202, A Wing Supreme Business Park, Hiranandani Gardens, Supreme City Powai Mumbai-400076 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aadca 0847 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. Yash Ranglani, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/02/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Challenging The Impugned Final Assessment Order Dated 30.07.2024, Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 144C(13) R.W. Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai-2, For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. At The Time Of The Hearing, The Learned Ar For The Assessee Submitted A Copy Of The Acknowledgement Dated 31.01.2025 Of Filing Of Form 1 Under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 & Stated That 2 Aveva Information Technology India Pvt. Ltd. The Assessee Has Opted For Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.In Light Of The Above Letter, We Dismiss The Appeal Of The Assessee With The Liberty To Reinstate The Appeal If Its Application Under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, Is Not Accepted.

For Appellant: Mr. Yash Ranglani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

Pronouncement : 14/02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Singh Karhail, JM : The assessee has filed the present appeal challenging the impugned final assessment order dated 30.07.2024, passed under section 143(3) r.w. section 144C(13) r.w. section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) pursuant

Mukesh Kumar, Sonipat vs. ITO, Sonipat

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 4142/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 23Section 23(1)(c)Section 250Section 27(1)

taking adverse view against the assesse ii) That there is no opportunity for oral hearing as per section 144B given before passing final assessment order. That the appellant craves leave to add add/alter any/all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal

Agrawal Distilleries Pvt Ltd, Indore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee Ground Nos 9 & 10 is allowed

ITA 1169/MUM/2024[2014-2015 (Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla/wShriFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha(PCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 35ASection 36(1)(m)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(1)

Appellant before the Dispute Resolution Panel [‘DRP’] 18"December Directions issued by the DRP u/s 144C(5) of the Act. 2013 30" January Final Assessment Order passed by the AO u/s 144C(5) of 2014 the Act. 03"March 2014 | Appeal filed by the Appellant before the Hon’ble Delhi ... Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal [‘Tribunal’] challenging the Final Assessment Order, ITA No.1169/Del/2014. 02™April 2014 | Appeal filed by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Tribunal challenging the Final Assessment Order bearingITA No.1950/Del/2014] 14" March2018 | Order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi Bench of the Tribunal deciding

Iqvia Inc.(Formerly Quintiles Ims Incorporated As Successor to Quintiles Transnational Corp.), Bangalore vs. DCIT (It), Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3016/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: The Authorities, The Application Is Reproduced Hereunder:-

Section 143(3)

11/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 12/02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against final assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) for the A.Y.2015-16 passed in pursuance of directions given by the DRP vide order dated 26/02/2018. M/s. IQVIA

Iqvia Rds Inc. (Formerly Known As Quintiles Inc), Bangalore vs. DCIT (It), Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3015/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: The Authorities, The Application Is Reproduced Hereunder:-

Section 143(3)

11/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 12/02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against final assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) for the A.Y.2015-16 passed in pursuance of directions given by the DRP vide order dated 26/02/2018. M/s. IQVIA

Vodafone Digilink Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee Ground Nos 9 & 10 is allowed

ITA 1169/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla/wShriFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha (PCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 35ASection 36(1)(m)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(1)

before the Dispute Resolution Panel ['DRP'] 18th December 2013 Directions issued by the DRP u/s 144C(5) of the Act. 30th January 2014 Final Assessment Order passed by the AO u/s 144C(5) of the Act. 03rd March 2014 Appeal filed by the Appellant before the Hon'ble Delhi Bench ... Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ['Tribunal'] challenging the Final Assessment Order, ITA No.1169/Del/2014. 02nd April 2014 Appeal filed by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Tribunal challenging the Final Assessment Order bearingITA No.1950/Del/2014] 14th March2018 Order passed by the Hon'ble Delhi Bench of the Tribunal deciding the cross-appeals filed

Pfizer Products India Private Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 4391/MUM/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ketav Ved a/w Ms. Riddhi Jain, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT D/R
Section 144

Comparable companies as per the TP Order are as under:- I.T.A. No. 4381/Mum/2024 5 9. And the final set of comparable considered in final assessment order are as under:- I.T.A. No. 4381/Mum/2024 6 10. In light of the above, the TP adjustment made by the TPO is as under

Kreuz Subsea Technologies Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Int. Tax. 2(1)(2), Delhi

The Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1767/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhkreuz Subsea Technologies Pte. Ltd. Srbc & Associates Llp 16Th Floor, The Ruby,29, Senapatibapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Pan: Aafck7070C Vs. Acit International Taxation, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234BSection 234CSection 270A

Date of Hearing 11/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 11/02/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: Assessee filed the captioned appeal challenging the final assessment order dated 26/03/2021 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation 2(1)(2)-Delhi u/s 143(3) r.w. Section 144C ... assessing total income at Rs.6,66,77,861 as against Rs.7,18,313 returned by the Appellant. 2. erred in passing the final assessment order based on the directions of the Hon'ble DRP which were issued without discussing the merits and facts of the case. 3. erred in concluding

M/S U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd, Lucknow vs. ACIT Range-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 26/LKW/2007[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Feb 2025AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraacit, Range-1 V. M/S. Up State Bridge Corporation Ltd Ashok Marg, Lucknow. 16, Madan Mohan Malviya Marg, Lucknow Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri B. P Yadav, Cost Acct Respondent By: Smt Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri B. P Yadav, Cost AcctFor Respondent: Smt Namita S. Pandey, CIT(DR)
Section 154Section 260ASection 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

balance sheet of the assessee as on 31.03.1990. Finally, on 28.03.2003, the CIT has set aside the assessment u/s 263. 4. Final assessment order was passed on 12.12.2003 determining the total income at Rs. 71,28,266/- which included addition pertaining to EVR. In the meantime, the A.O. initiated penalty

Solvay Specialities India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(2) / Assessment Unit, NFAC, Mumbai

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

ITA 6686/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI. GIRISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. DhavalFor Respondent: Shri. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Pronouncement : 07.02.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the final assessment order dated 17.10.2024 of the learned Assessing Officer (‘ld. AO’ for short) passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income ... Legal Grounds: 1.4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has 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

Hemant Kumar, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee/appellant and against the Department

ITA 1465/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)

Aviation Trading 15 Ltd. (supra). 2.1. The ld. Counsel submits that though the assessee has raised other issues viz. tenability of the impugned final assessment order and directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) beyond jurisdiction in ground no. 2 and 4 of appeal, respectively, the assessee is not pressing ... assessee has made statement at Bar that he is not pressing ground no. 2 and 4 of appeal challenging validity of final assessment order as well as the directions of the DRP. Accordingly, ground no. 2 and 4 of appeal are dismissed as not pressed. 9. The assessees in appeal

Wave Industries Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5241/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalirdeto Technology India Assessment Unit, Private Limited, Income Tax Department, 171, Somdutt Chambers-Ii, Vs. (Ld. Ao). Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066, India Pan-Aabci3564M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Parul Girdhar, Ca Department By Shri S. K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 O R D E R Per Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm: The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out From The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 25Th September, 2024 Having Din No. Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2024-25/1069101879(1) & Relates To Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Five Grounds Of Appeal, Out Of Which Ground No.3,4,5 Are Consequential & Hence, Does Not Require Adjudication.

while selecting comparable for bench marking the international transaction. Thereafter, the TPO passed the order giving effect and thus, the AO passed the final assessment order, impugned before us. 6. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee appearing virtually contended that the assessee want an exclusion of only

Caterpillar Financial Servies India Private Limited, Whitefield, Bangalore, Karnataka vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Jurisdictional AO - ACIT, Circle 2(2)(1)), Bmtc Building, Koramangala, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1621/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E, CIT (DR)
Section 92C

Date of Pronouncement : 04.02.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The appeal filed by the assessee is against the Final Assessment order dated 27/06/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2024-25/ 1066124976(1) for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee

Sri Tanmoy Dutta, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 63(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1784/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

assessee in the IDS income of Rs. 7,23,176/- and proposed the addition of Rs. 27,30,594/-. However, in the final assessment order, the AO made the addition of the entire deposit in the bank accounts of the assessee, treating, the same as income of the assessee from ... even by any circumstantial evidence. Even the AO earlier proposed to make the addition @ 5% of the deposits but later on, in the final assessment order made the addition of the entire deposits, whereas, the assessee has duly explained the source of deposits and also provided the name and addresses

The Ramco Cements Ltd., Rajapalayam vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle, Madurai

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2144/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2144/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2020-21) The Ramco Cements Limited Acit बनाम/ Ramamandiram, Corporate Circle, Vs. Rajapalayam-626 117. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri S.Muralidhar & J.Prabhakar (Fcas)- Ld.Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som(Cit) -Ld. Dr

For Appellant: S/Shri S.Muralidhar & J.Prabhakar (FCAs)- Ld.ARsFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som(CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 43BSection 80G

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21 arises out of final assessment order dated 18.07.2024 passed by Ld. Assessing Officer, (AO) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s 144B of the Act pursuant to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Ssnr Projects Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 461/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S Balakrishnanआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.461/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2020-21) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Ssnr Projects Private Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aarcs 2464 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Samuel Nagadesi ""ाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2024 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of : 31/01/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri Samuel NagadesiFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 90

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 ... filed by the 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 ismade clear that the impugned order is set aside only to the extent of disallowing of FTC claim made by the petitioner

Nga Hr (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit (Jao - DCIT, Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai)

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and the stay petition filed by the assessee stands dismissed infructuous

ITA 5777/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 253(1)(d)Section 92(3)Section 92C

27/01/2025 Date of Pronouncement 31/01/2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: S.A. No.122/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2021-22 2 Present appeal arises out of the final assessment order dated 30/09/2024 passed by assessment unit for assessment year 2021-22 on following grounds of appeal: “Appeal under section

Dolphin Promoters and Builders, Raipur vs. Addl.CIT, Range-1, Raipur

ITA 58/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 58/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal & Vimal KumarFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 68Section 801B(10)

order under section 127 of the Act transferring the jurisdiction to the Addi. CIT, prejudice is caused to the assessee as the impugned final assessment order was passed without any jurisdiction. 27. The issue in dispute has already been decided in favour of the assessee by various decisions ... Officer under section 2(7A) and also in absence of an order transferring the jurisdiction under section I27 of the Act, the impugned final assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act, in the case of the assessee, by the Addi