“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

DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Income Tax Department vs. Greatship(India) Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 753/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jeet KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar

Section 144Section 144C(3)Section 250

made by the Appellant in the return of income. 7. The Appellant did not file reference before the Dispute Resolution Panel and therefore, Final Assessment Order was passed on 28/01/2020 making the above additions proposed in the Draft Assessment Order. 5 Assessment Year 2016-2017 8. The Assessee preferred appeal ... before the CIT(A) against the Final Assessment Order. Vide order dated 19/12/2023, the CIT(A) disposed off the aforesaid appeal as partly allowed deleting the transfer pricing addition of INR 14,35,86,295/- and disallowance of INR 9,93,001/- under Section 14A read with Rule

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai vs. Foodlink Services India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for

ITA 4863/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Mr. Raj Singh Meel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68

noted that in the draft assessment order the Assessing Officer proposed disallowance invoking section 40(a)(ia) of the Act whereas in the final assessment order made disallowance for lacking genuineness of the rental expenses. The ld CIT(A) held that addition made by the AO without opportunity

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai vs. Foodlink Services India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for

ITA 4854/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Mr. Raj Singh Meel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Aakar Bhavan vs. Foodlink Services India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for

ITA 4851/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Mr. Raj Singh Meel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68

Invesco(India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

ITA 506/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: FixedITAT Hyderabad29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice(Retd.) C.V.Bhadang, Hon'Ble, Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri G.Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mamata Choudhary

Section 144C(13)Section 92C

663/Hyd/2022 144C(5) of the Act, inter-alia confirmed the TP adjustment. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer passed final assessment order u/s 144C(13) of the Act on 28.10.2019 in line with the directions issued by the DRP. Aggrieved by the final assessment order

Adama India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1771/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: FixedITAT Hyderabad29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice(Retd.) C.V.Bhadang, Hon'Ble, Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri G.Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mamata Choudhary

Section 144C(13)Section 92C

Asst. CIT- 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Blue Star Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 4447/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Prabhash Shankar, Am Acit Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai Blue Star Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. Ce-9010, 9013, 9Th Floor, Tower-C, R. No. 568, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Road, Mumbai – 400020. Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. Aadcb6475E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agarwal Respondent By : Shri. Kiran Unavekar Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 01.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran Unavekar Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 92C

account of corporate guarantee commission on corporate guarantee given by the assessee to its AE. The ld. AO then passed the final assessment order dated 23.12.2016, determining total income at Rs. 41,70,88,930/-, after making various additions/disallowances. 4. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before

Matrix Partners India Investment Holdings, Llc, Mauritius vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3097/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 115JSection 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 270ASection 274

Hearing 06/01/2025 Date of Pronouncement 29/01/2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of final assessment order passed by DCIT circle-3(2)(1), Mumbai for assessment year 2020-21 on following grounds of appeal : I.T.A. No.3097/Mum/2023 ... Section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act would be leviable. The Appellant prays that there is no income assessed under the final assessment order and hence interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act does not apply to the Appellant.” I.T.A. No.3097/Mum/2023

Nkg Infrastructure Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-27, Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1896/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17 Rajeev Malik, Vs Acit, Central, 26/28, East Patel Nagar, International Taxation 2(2)(1), New Delhi – 110 008. New Delhi. Pan: Agbpm6372N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Ekta Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2024 Passed By The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Taxation-2(2)(1), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao) U/S 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Ay 2016-17. 2. On Hearing Both The Sides, We Find That Amongst Other Grounds On Merits, The Assessee Has Raised Ground No.2 As Follows:-

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Ekta Jain, CIT-DR

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 3

Date of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the final assessment order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, International Taxation-2(2)(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred

Shree Shyam Sales Corporation, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(2), Raipur. (C.G.), Raipur

ITA 188/RPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 188/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 69C

raise/put forth in the f01m of reply/objections) in detail along with reasons for rejection of the reply, if any and thereafter, shall pass final assessment order in accordance with law. 6.8 Unless and otherwise, the above aspects are not scrupulously followed, the same would pave a way for the assessee

Cambridge Technology Enterprises Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.536/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Cambridge Technology Vs. Dcit Enterprises Limited Circle-1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaacu3358G] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/10/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2019 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Ld.Pcit], Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company, Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Software Services, Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2012-13 On 26.09.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.4,05,55,380/- Under Normal Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) & Rs.1,47,09173/-

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Sewak, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

have any power to go beyond the directions issued by the DRP. Therefore, there is no question of the Ld.PCIT, holding that the final assessment order is erroneous so as to come within the ambit of section 263 of the Act. In this regard, he relied upon the decision ... financial statements of the assesse for the year under consideration, which was already on record before the Assessing Officer, while passing the final assessment order. Once those records are available to the Assessing Officer, it is presumed that the Assessing Officer has looked into the issue, while completing the assessment

Fujitsu India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 693/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Fujitsu India P. Ltd., Vs National Faceless Assessment Rectangale-1, D-4, Centre, District Centre, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi – 110 019. Pan: Aaacf4170D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate, Ms Shruti Khimta, Ar & Shri Kaskaran Singh, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 Order

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

Section 143(3)

Date of Hearing : 07.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the final assessment order dated 18.02.2022 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the National ... computed an adjustment on account of AMP expenses incurred by the Assessee. Hence, on conclusion of the assessment proceedings i.e. receipt of the final assessment order, two adjustments were made - one on account of the margin earned in the distribution segment with change in the most appropriate method and second

Adani Power Ltd. (Previously Known As Adani Power Maharashtra Limited Now Amalgamated With Adani Power Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal challenging the validity of 263 order passed in the name of a non-existent entity is hereby allowed

ITA 453/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah on behalf of Shri ManishFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT DR

Section 263Section 37(1)

DCIT 96 taxmann.com 182 (Bombay), the Hon'ble High Court held that where in case of foreign assessee, Assessing Officer passed final assessment order under section 144C(13), read with section 143(3) without passing a draft assessment order under section 144C(1), said order being violative of provisions

Sanghi Industries Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -3 (1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92CSection 92E

assessee and also going through the material available on record, dismissed the objections raised by the assessee. Thereafter, the Ld. AO passed the final assessment order U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 03/02/2022 and assessed the total income

Tvf Fund Ltd., Mauritius, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation)-4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4632/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 153Section 74Section 90(2)

Hearing 14/01/2025 Date of Pronouncement 23/ 01/2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of final assessment order dated 23/10/2023 passed by the Ld. DCIT Circle- 4(1)(2), Mumbai for assessment year 2021-22 on following grounds of appeal: 2 A.Y.2021-22 ... order of the Ld. AO assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is challenging the final assessment order passed by the Ld. AO to be void ab initio as it is passed beyond the period of limitation as per the ratio laid

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Shillong, Shillong vs. Dhar Construction Company, Shillong

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 39/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 69C

subsequent notices has the Ld. AO asked for the bills or discussed the non-submission of bills. He made an addition in the final assessment order mentioning that the addition is made as no bills were produced for verification which is wholly in contradiction to the Page

Ved Prakash Sharma, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhiwadi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1115/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250

jurisdiction with AO,Bhiwadi who undertook all the proceedings right from issuing notice u/s 5 Ved Prakash Sharma, Alwar. 148 to passing of final assessment order, as he resides in Jaipur and has been filing ITR by quoting address of Jaipur and his PAN lies with ITO, Ward

M/S Tdk India Pvt. Ltd.(Formerly Known As M/S Epcos India Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 282/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 144C(5)Section 92C

allowed. 15. Third issue in ground no. 18 is with respect of incorrect income being considered for computation of total income for the final assessment order. 16. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of nil after adjusting of brought forward losses ... losses and the same was also processed u/s 143(1) taking the total income at Rs.10,75,04,394/-. However, while passing the final assessment order the AO/TPO has considered Rs. 14,53,05,165/- instead of Rs.10,75,04,394/-. The assessee has also filed rectification petition before

M/S Tdk India Limited (Formerly Known As Epcos India Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. -11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 203/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 144C(5)Section 92C

allowed. 15. Third issue in ground no. 18 is with respect of incorrect income being considered for computation of total income for the final assessment order. 16. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of nil after adjusting of brought forward losses ... same was also processed u/s 143(1) taking the total income at Rs. 10,75,04,394/-. However, while passing the final assessment order the AO/TPO has considered Rs. 15 I.T.A. No.203/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/s TDK India Limited (formerly known as EPCOS India

Kolambur Sambamurthy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3012/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. S.K. Vyashnavee, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Easwar, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

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