← All Phrases

“eligible assessee”

Assessment ProceduresSection 144CSection 144C662 judgments

The decision most relied on for eligible assessee is CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302), cited in 540 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on eligible assessee

CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd.
348 ITR 302 · 2012 · Supreme Court
540
citing judgments

Goodwill, whether arising from an amalgamation or a slump sale, is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act. While the assessee must prove the existence and valuation of such goodwill, it is recognized as a depreciable asset.

Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT
262 ITR 278 · 2003 · Supreme Court
353
citing judgments

Income eligible for deduction under Section 80IA or 80IC must have a direct nexus with the eligible business activity of the industrial undertaking. Income merely incidental to the business, even if part of the assessee's overall business, is not considered "derived from" the eligible undertaking.

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
391 ITR 274 · 2017 · Supreme Court
290
citing judgments

Deduction under Section 10A or 10AA of the Income-tax Act is computed on the profits of the eligible unit without first setting off losses from other units or non-eligible units. Conversely, losses incurred by an eligible unit are allowed to be set off against the assessee's other taxable business profits.

CIT v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd.
322 ITR 323 · 2010 · High Court
229
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot deny a Section 80IA deduction by merely asserting that the assessee is not a "developer" without considering the relevant agreements and facts. Entitlement to Section 80IA deduction requires a thorough examination of the assessee's role as a developer.

CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.
326 ITR 251 · 2010 · High Court
196
citing judgments

If approval from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) for an in-house R&D centre is granted during the previous year, the assessee is entitled to claim weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) for the entire expenditure incurred during that year.

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.

CIT v. Ramkrishna Deo
35 ITR 312 · 1959 · Supreme Court
84
citing judgments

The burden of proving that a particular income is exempt from taxation, or is not taxable, lies on the assessee. To claim an exemption or a deduction, the assessee must provide proper materials to establish eligibility.

CIT v. Kamal Wahal
351 ITR 4 · 2013 · High Court
71
citing judgments

An assessee is eligible for capital gains exemption under Sections 54 and 54F even when the new residential house is purchased in the name of their spouse, provided the investment comes from the assessee's own funds. This allows for a purposive construction of these provisions.

Judgments citing eligible assessee

Hindustan Construction Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1043/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalhindustan Construction Company Ltd., Hincon House, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 083. Pan No.: Aaach0968B ..... Appellant Vs. Pcit, Mumbai-6, R. No. 501, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400 020. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Unadkat, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 90Section 92C

first instance, forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment (hereafter in this section referred to as the draft order) to the eligible assessee if he proposes to make, on or after the 1st day of October, 2009, any variation which is prejudicial to the interest of such assessee ... receipt of the draft order, the eligible assessee shall, within thirty days of the receipt by him of the draft order,— (a) file his acceptance of the variations to the Assessing Officer; or (b) file his objections, if any, to such variation with,— (i) the Dispute Resolution Panel

Palanisamy Navaladi, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

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

ITA 1822/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1822/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Palanisamy Navaladi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 102A, Kanganipatti, Parali Post, Ward - 2, Namakkal 637 020. Namakkal. [Pan: Agdpn3363J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 Are General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 144Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

that the provision under section 44AD of the Act provides for computing profits and gains of business on presumptive basis in case of an eligible assessee engaged in an eligible business a sum equal to 8% of the total turnover or gross receipts of the assessee or a sum higher

Ifthikar Karuppamveetil Abdul Rahman, Chavakkad vs. ITO, International Taxation, Kochi

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 119/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 144CSection 144C(15)(b)Section 147Section 56Section 57

admitted case for the assessing authority that the appellant is a non-resident. The inclusion of non-resident within the purview of eligible assessee' under Section 144C(15)(b)(ii) was vide Finance Act, 2020, operative w.e.f 01.04.2020. Until 31.03.2020, which covers A.Y 2018-19, non-residents were not falling ... within the purview of 'eligible assessee. The statutory Amendment under Section 144C of the Act, covering non- resident, will be applicable only from Assessment Year 2020-21 onwards, The Legislature has not intended to give retrospectivity to the amended provision. Therefore, the appellant who is admittedly a non-resident will

Nitin Kumar Bohra, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 340/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.T. Seshadri, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 234ASection 250Section 69

required to maintain books of accounts under the special provision for computing profits & gains of business on presumptive basis u/s. 44AD and assessee is eligible assessee. 7. The ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that the cash deposited during the demonetisation period is very ... income u/s. 144 of the Act, however he has accepted income disclosed by the assessee. It is also noted that the assessee is an eligible assessee u/s. 44AD and he has disclosed income @ 9.92% u/s. 44AD. The amount deposited in the bank account is less than the turnover declared

Uppada Kesavajanardhana Rao, Florida, Usa vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 40/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 40/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Uppada Kesavajanardhana Rao V. Asst. Cit 7266, Chelsea Harbor Dr International Taxation Orlando, Florida, Usa – 32829 Income Tax Office, Infinity Towers Sankaramatam Road Usa - 322829 Visakhapatnam - 530016 [Pan :Aiipk6712H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदधतध कध प्रनतनिनर्त्व / Assessee Represented By : Mrs. Hema Latha K., Ar रधजस्व कध प्रनतनिनर्त्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144CSection 147Section 148

144C(4). The relevant portion of the section 144C(4) is reproduced herewith for reference: " 144C; (2) On receipt of the draft order, the eligible assessee shall, within thirty days of the receipt by him of the draft order; (a) file his acceptance of the variations to the Assessing Officer

Ebro India Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-7(1), Delhi

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1291/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 68

served on the assessee. The assessee contentions are without any basis, incorrect and also misleading. At the outset, it is submitted that assessee is "eligible assessee" as per section 144C (15) (b) of the I.T Act, and this fact is not disputed. As the assessee, is eligible assessee ... under section 144C of the I.T Act. For the assessee covered under section 144C, draft assessment order is required to be forwarded to the eligible assessee, if the AO proposes a variation, which is prejudicial to the interest of such assessee. For ready reference, the provision of section 144C

Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT, Special Range-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 7745/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: disregarding the ALP determined by the Appellant and proceeded to determine the ALP himself.

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

AO/Ld. TPO/ Hon'ble DRP completely failed to apply their minds while relying on Safe Harbor Rules ('SHR') since the SHR are applicable to 'eligible assessee' as defined in Rule 10TB of the Rules in relation to 'eligible international transactions' as defined in Rule 10TC and the Appellant, as part ... segment, did not qualify as an eligible assessee' and the international transactions pertaining to the NMP segment did not qualify as 'eligible international transactions'; 2.3.3 That on facts of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO/ Hon'ble DRP completely failed to appreciate that SHR are applicable

Rahul Agarwal, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 765/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Senthil Kumar N., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(35)Section 111ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

resident and assuming jurisdiction and ought to have noted that the Appellant was a resident and thus not an "eligible assessee" as per section 144C(15)(b). 3. The DRP/ AO, having accepted the fact that the Appellant 52,19,475 was resident in India during the relevant previous year ... Rs.1,36,96,832 as dividend income under the head income from other sources. He noted that the assessee being non-resident is an eligible assessee as per section 144C(b)(ii) of the Act and passed draft assessment order u/s 144 C(1) of the Act . 6. The assessee

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO-15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 988/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 153

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY

Ganesan Kannan, Thoothukudi vs. Iti, International Taxation Ward, Thoothukudi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 698/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Gandhi, Addl. CIT
Section 144C(1)Section 144C(8)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

section (5) shall be issued after nine months from the end of the month in which the draft order is forwarded to the eligible assessee Section 144C(13) "Upon receipt of the directions issued under sub-section (5), the Assessing Officer shall, in conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything ... like to submit that if the time limit u/s.153 is considered, the very purpose of including non-resident Indian u/s.144C(15)(b)(ii) as “eligible assessee” would get defeated because the time limit for the Assessing Officer to draft the order gets restricted and it will be less than

Kunturu Chinna Narayana Nagaraju, Pulivendla vs. Income Tax Officer, Bagalkot

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

ITA 763/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sandhya Samudrala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 44ASection 69A

infirmity in the order of CIT(Appeals) and the assessee is unable to prove that it is exempt towards eligible business and eligible assessee is defined u/s 44AD and assessee has also not maintained any books of account. He has not complied other provisions for showing lower profit. We hold

DCIT(International Taxation), Delhi vs. Kesav Sree Kumar Kesavan Nair, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2849/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mithun N. Shate, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 144CSection 147Section 69Section 69C

without following the due process and procedure as envisaged under section 144C (1) of the Act, as the Assessee is an eligible assessee, being a non-resident, under section 144C (15) of the Act. Hence the Assessment order dated 30-03-2022 is bad and invalid ... without following the due process and procedure as envisaged under section 144C (1) of the Act, as the Assessee is an eligible assessee, being a non-resident, under section 144C (15) of the Act. Hence the Assessment order dated 30-03-2022 is bad and invalid

DCIT, International Taxation Circle-2(1)2, Delhi vs. Kesav Sree Kumar Kesavan Nair, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2848/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mithun N. Shate, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 144CSection 147Section 69Section 69C

without following the due process and procedure as envisaged under section 144C (1) of the Act, as the Assessee is an eligible assessee, being a non-resident, under section 144C (15) of the Act. Hence the Assessment order dated 30-03-2022 is bad and invalid ... without following the due process and procedure as envisaged under section 144C (1) of the Act, as the Assessee is an eligible assessee, being a non-resident, under section 144C (15) of the Act. Hence the Assessment order dated 30-03-2022 is bad and invalid

Anish Rajnikant Shah, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

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

ITA 200/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 68

cheque and cash deposit in bank account , aggregated to the tune of Rs.47.76,397/- , as the assessee is claiming that he is an eligible assessee as is stipulated u/s 44AD engaged in the eligible business. On careful perusal of the ITR filed by the assessee, I have observed that ... I.T.A No. 200/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 13 Anish Rajnikant Shah v. ITO taxation u/s 44AD, the assessee has to be in an eligible assessee engaged in the eligible business. Thus, the primary onus is on the assessee to prove that he is an eligible assessee engaged

Gulab Grandsons Foundation, Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 353/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139Section 139(9)Section 164(1)Section 164(3)Section 44A

action of Ld. AO treating return filed u/s 139 as invalid by alleging that the assessee is an AOP/BOI and hence not an eligible assessee as per Section 44AD of the Act as and is not available to the assessee as it is only a trust created through the will

Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 7 (1) (1), Mumbai

ITA 1484/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 1484/Mum/2021

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vachaspati Tripathi, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 253(1)Section 92C

final assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act, without passing the draft assessment order as applicable in case of Appellant being 'eligible Assessee' as per section 144C(1) of the Act, thereby entire order which not in consonance of the Act should be quashed. In upholding the validity ... first instance, forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment (hereafter in this section referred to as the draft order) to the eligible assessee if he proposes to make, on or after the 1st day of October, 2009, any variation in the income or loss returned which is prejudicial

Capgemini Technology Services India Limited (Successor to Capgemini India Private Limited, Airoli, Navi Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 55, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2657/MUM/2023[AY 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M P LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(3)Section 92C

transfer pricing adjustments can be said to be made and therefore the condition required to be met for Indian Companies to be an “eligible assessee” under the provisions of Section 144C of the Act is not met and therefore, order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(4) is also ... draft assessment order imbibes a jurisdictional power in terms of Sec. 144C(1) of the Act and creates/ envisages special rights upon the ‘eligible assessee’. If such an order is passed on an assessee who is not an 'eligible assessee' as defined in section 144C

M/S Regen Renewable Energy Generation Global Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, International Taxation Circle - 2 (1), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 685/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.684/Chny/2022 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.685/Chny/2022 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Regen Renewable Energy Acit बनाम Generation Global Limited International Taxation New No.1, Pulla Avenue, / Vs. Circle-2(1), Chennai. Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcr-0685-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Ca) – Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Mrs. Jyothi Lakshmi Nayak (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Jyothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 115A(1)(b)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 234B

which essentially provide that Ld. AO, in the first instance, has to forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the eligible assessee if he proposes to make, on or after the 1st day of October, 2009, any variation in the income or loss returned which is prejudicial ... resident company incorporated, and fiscally domiciled, in Cyprus. Accordingly, in terms of Section 144C(15)(b)(ii), the assessee is an eligible assessee but then there is no change in the figure of income returned by the assessee vis- a-vis the income assessed by Ld. AO. Clearly, there

M/S Regen Renewable Energy Generation Global Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, International Taxation Circle - 2 (1), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 684/CHNY/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.684/Chny/2022 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.685/Chny/2022 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Regen Renewable Energy Acit बनाम Generation Global Limited International Taxation New No.1, Pulla Avenue, / Vs. Circle-2(1), Chennai. Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcr-0685-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Ca) – Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Mrs. Jyothi Lakshmi Nayak (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Jyothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 115A(1)(b)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 234B

which essentially provide that Ld. AO, in the first instance, has to forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the eligible assessee if he proposes to make, on or after the 1st day of October, 2009, any variation in the income or loss returned which is prejudicial ... resident company incorporated, and fiscally domiciled, in Cyprus. Accordingly, in terms of Section 144C(15)(b)(ii), the assessee is an eligible assessee but then there is no change in the figure of income returned by the assessee vis- a-vis the income assessed by Ld. AO. Clearly, there

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Gupshup Technology India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2327/MUM/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Kumar Agrawal, Sr
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 153BSection 92C

further submits that once the TPO order is barred by limitation, then assessee is no longer an eligible assessee and therefore, there was no requirement for passing draft assessment order. The ld AR argued that accordingly the final assessment order should have been passed on or before 31/03/2015 whereas here ... under section 92CA(3) of the Act was passed. 10. Last date to pass final assessment order considering 31.03.2015 assessee is not an eligible assessee 11. Date on which final assessment order was passed 30.04.2015 4. The ld AR also placed reliance on several decisions of the coordinate bench