“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

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

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

Ares Diversified, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Intl. Taxation 1(1)(1), New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 2372/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 144C(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 3

date. 4.3 The provisions of section 144C(2) of 1.T. Act are mentioned as under : (2) On receipt of the draft order, the eligible assessee, within 30 days of the receipt by him of the draft order- (a) file his acceptance of the variations to the Assessing Officer ... Assessing Officer." 4.3.1 In view of the above provisions, in case of non- acceptance of the variations to the AO, the eligible assessee must simultaneously within the stipulated time, file the objections before the Panel and also to intimate the assessing officer. The Panel is of the view that

Ares Diversified, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Intl. Taxation 1(1)(1), New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 2371/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 144C(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 3

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Delhi vs. Adm Agro Industries Kot & Akola Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 839/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri R.K. Kapoor, CA

Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 92C

would show that the Assessing Officer in the first instance is required to pass a draft assessment order in the case of eligible assessee, if he proposes to make any variation which is prejudicial to the interest of such assessee, on or after 01.10.2009. In the Explanatory circular for Finance ... 144C has been inserted with effect from 1st April, 2009. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is required to forward a draft assessment 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

ITO Int Taxn Ward, Tuticorin Chennai vs. Shri Abdul Rahman Viswa Abdul Salam, Chennai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 654/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.654/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2014-15 Income-Tax Officer, Shri Abdul Rahman Viswas Abdul International Taxation Ward, Salam, No.64/114, Kalvath Nayagam Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu Street, Kadayanallur, Tenkasi Dist, Tn-627751 [Pan: Apppa9666L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.Abhishek Murali, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

For Appellant: Mr.Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144C(2)Section 147Section 250

served manually on 01-04-2022. Section 144C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, 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

Inmobi Technology Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee for AY

ITA 303/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A Nos. 303 & 839/Bang/2022

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya, Sr. Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

forward the draft assessment order wherein there is an addition proposed by the Ld.TPO, which is prejudicial to the interest of an eligible assessee. 6.14 Once the provisions of section 144C get invoked, it is upon the assessee to decide, as to whether, it has to file objection before ... DRP/Ld.AO, to act upon, thereby making the section to be a complete code in itself, to carry out an assessment in case of an eligible assessee. Page 16 of 86 IT(TP)A Nos. 303 & 839/Bang/2022 6.15 In this entire process, it is peculiar to note that, nowhere the statute

Syed Gulam Mohiuddin, Hyderabad vs. ITO, International Taxation-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 136/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.136/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Syed Gulam Vs. Income Tax Officer Mohiuddin (International Taxation)-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Decpm0365H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 12.01.2023 Of The Learned Assessing Officer (International Taxation-1), Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: “1. The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer (Int Taxn)-1,Hyd (Herein After Referred To As 'Ao) Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law To The Extent The Order Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shiva Sewak, CIT(DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 69

money for purchase of immoveable property. v) The Assessing Officer vide para-No. 11 of the assessment order, informed the assessee that he eligible assessee under sub-sec. 15(b)(ii) of Sec. 144C to avail benefit of reference of raising objections or to approach. As per the provisions ... 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. Sec. 144C(13) "Upon receipt of the directions issued under sub- section (5), the Assessing officer shall, in conformity Page

Pfizer Healthcare India Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle-1-Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the corporate additions made in the assessment order would not survive

ITA 641/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.641/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S.Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Limited Dcit (Formerly Known As Hospira Healthcare India Corporate Circle-5(2)-Ltu, बनाम/ Private Limited) Chennai. Vs. 237, Emerald Building, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabco-2190-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah (Ca)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(15)(b)Section 14ASection 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 2(24)Section 31Section 35Section 92C

dated November 01, 2019 is void-ab-initio and accordingly, the transfer pricing adjustment is non-est. Consequently, the Appellant cease to be an eligible assessee as defined under section 144C(15)(b) of the Act and therefore, the machinery provisions of Section 144C of the Act would ... account of being barred by limitation under section 153(1) read with section 153(4) of the Act, since the Appellant is not an eligible Assessee under section 144C (1) of the Act as the transfer pricing proceedings have become void ab-initio subsequent to the order of the Madras

Zydus Lifesciences Limited (Formerly Known As Cadila Healthcare Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92BSection 92C

quashed. Further that, as TPO’s order is non-est in the eyes of law, then the assessee could no longer be treated as eligible assessee and the draft assessment order also could not have been passed and finally the Assessment Officer as not provided with the extended period ... limitation, then the draft assessment order could not have been passed in the case of assessee because assessee would no longer be treated as eligible assessee. This issue has been dealt in detail by the Co- ordinate Bench in the case of Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Relevant portion of which

Sai Kiran Sanukam, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed accordingly

ITA 390/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri V. Venkata Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 44A

Tribunal. 4. Learned AR submitted that under section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), in the case of the eligible assessee, a sum equivalent to 8% of the total turnover or gross receipts of the assessee in the previous year shall be deemed

Conferencecall Services India Private Ltd, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle -1(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 319/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.319/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. M/S.Conferencecall – The Dy. Commissioner- Services India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Rmz Titanium, No.135, 1St Floor, Corporate Circle-1(2), Old Airport Road, Chennai. Bangalore-560 017. [Pan: Aaccc 6574 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adhak (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

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 ... interest of such assessee. (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; or (b) File his objections, if any, to such variation with

Home Credit International A.S., Czech Republic vs. Assistant. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2068/DEL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

implementation of directions of learned DRP by the Assessing Officer. 13. Section 144C, which provides the mechanism for making assessment in case of an eligible assessee is a self contained code 18 | P a g e AY: 2020-21 by itself. As per the provisions contained under section 144C ... after framing of a draft assessment order, if eligible assessee chooses to avail the DRP route, then such assessee has to raise objections before the DRP within the period of 30 days of the receipt of draft assessment order. Sub-section (5) of section 144C provides that after receiving

Mudra Industries, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 380/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri. B. R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 143(1)Section 44A

which is applicable to the return of income for the presumptive income from business and profession as prescribed for the year under consideration for eligible assessee for eligible business. In the return of income, the assessee itself has shown as (0124) Manufacturing Industry-Others and there is no separate classification

Computer Modelling Group Limited, Canada vs. ACIT International Taxation Circle 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2091/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

raised the following grounds of appeals: Assessment Year 2012-13 1. That the Ld. AO has grossly erred in treating the Appellant as an eligible assessee in terms of Section 144C of the Act and accordingly, passed draft assessment order under Section 144C of the Act, and thereafter passing

Computer Modelling Group Limited, Canada vs. DCIT Circle International Taxation 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2090/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

Computer Modelling Group Limited, Canada vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2305/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

Satish Babu Kannan, Bengaluru vs. ITO, Intnl Taxn Ward-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 370/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 195

date of order and this fact has been overlooked by DRP. It was contended that as per section 144C(2) of the Act, the eligible assessee on receipt of draft order, shall, within thirty days from the date of receipt of the draft order will file his objections against

Skybridge Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, (Tp)-2 Hyderbad, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 184/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar(Through Virtual Mode) & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Skybridge Solutions Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad, (Transfer Pricing)-2, H.No.8-2-239/L/83-A, Hyderabad. Plot No.83/A, Mla Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034, Telangana. Pan : Aalcs1899M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Raichandani, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. K. Haritha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2021-22 Arises From The Impugned Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act Dated 26.12.2023. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Software Development & Services Company, Filed Its Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2021-22 On 09.03.2022, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,06,49,030. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act On 24.08.2022. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & A Notice Under Section 143(2) Was Issued On 28.06.2022, To Which The Assessee Responded On 15.07.2023. Thereafter, A Reference Under Section 92Ca(1) Was Made To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm'S Length Price For Transactions With Associated Enterprises. The Tpo, Through An Order Dated 31.10.2023, Directed An Upward Adjustment Of Rs.1,83,25,993 To The Assessee'S Income For The Financial Year 2020-21. Consequently, A Show Cause Notice Was Issued To The Assessee On November 9, 2023, Regarding The Proposed Adjustment, Along With A Penalty Initiation Under Section 270A.

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Raichandani, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 154Section 253(1)(d)Section 270A

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

Smt. Aruna, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 537/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sukruth N. Segu, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for department

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 144CSection 44ASection 68

income based on percentage of receipts, on case-to-case basis and not the gross receipts completely. b) Presumptive taxation is allowed for eligible assessee. (Assessee is eligible assessee and benefit has to be given). 3.5 He submitted that even if 8% of total receipts are considered, the income works

ACIT Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M B Patil Construction Limited, Mumbai

ITA 98/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40Section 44A

name of SPIL, a nonexistent entity was invalid in the eyes of the law; f) SPIL ceased to be an "eligible assessee", in terms of section 144C(15) (b) of the Act. Consequently, there was no requirement to pass a draft assessment order/reference to DRPetc.; g) The final assessment order

M/S M.B.Patil Constructions Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

ITA 303/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40Section 44A