BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

142 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 79clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,408Mumbai1,354Bangalore586Karnataka315Chennai303Ahmedabad290Kolkata234Hyderabad204Surat157Jaipur146Pune142Cochin121Indore111Chandigarh107Rajkot53Calcutta53Cuttack41Visakhapatnam38Lucknow30Nagpur21Raipur20SC19Agra19Guwahati16Telangana15Jodhpur14Dehradun11Amritsar10Jabalpur9Ranchi7Panaji7Varanasi6Rajasthan4Patna3Allahabad2Orissa2Kerala2Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)77Addition to Income72Transfer Pricing57Section 12A36Comparables/TP36Section 92C31Section 92C(3)29Disallowance24Section 1122

MERCEDES-BENZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 495/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: S/Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Darpan KirpalaniFor Respondent: Shri J.P., Chandraker
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

transfer price as available under proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act. B. Grounds related to corporate tax adjustments Ground No. 16 - Disallowance of Royalty expenditure Erred on the facts and in circumstances of the case in disallowing the royalty expenditure of Rs 12,51,11,887 as capital expenditure for AY 2012-13. Ground No. 17 - Disallowance

FAURECIA INTERIOR SYSTEMS INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Showing 1–20 of 142 · Page 1 of 8

...
Section 26320
Section 10(20)20
Section 115J19
ITA 781/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 92C(2)

Transfer Pricing proceedings. The TPO introduced couple of comparables namely, Jeevan Softech (Segment) and BNR Udyog Ltd. for benchmarking the international transactions. However, assessee contends that they needs to be rejected as they cannot pass FAR test. In this regard, assessee filed written submissions giving arguments of DRP/TPO/AO as well as the contentions of the assessee. The same are extracted

M/S. SAVA MEDICA LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal for the A

ITA 739/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.738, 739 & 740/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Sangram Gaikwad
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C

79,13,325 98,09,907 30,92,73,660 31,71,86,985 2010-11 8,81,15,771

M/S. SAVA MEDICA LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal for the A

ITA 740/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.738, 739 & 740/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Sangram Gaikwad
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C

79,13,325 98,09,907 30,92,73,660 31,71,86,985 2010-11 8,81,15,771

M/S. SAVA MEDICA LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal for the A

ITA 738/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.738, 739 & 740/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Sangram Gaikwad
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C

79,13,325 98,09,907 30,92,73,660 31,71,86,985 2010-11 8,81,15,771

M/S EATON POWER QUALITY P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 119/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(3)

Transfer Pricing which also recommends the indirect charge approach for intra- group services in certain circumstances. The relevant Paras from the OECD Guidelines are reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "Para 7.24 -In some cases, an indirect charge method may be necessary due to the nature of the service being provided. One example is where the proportion of the value

M/S. EATON POWER QUALITY PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1373/PUN/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(3)

Transfer Pricing which also recommends the indirect charge approach for intra- group services in certain circumstances. The relevant Paras from the OECD Guidelines are reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "Para 7.24 -In some cases, an indirect charge method may be necessary due to the nature of the service being provided. One example is where the proportion of the value

NALCO WATER INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2, , PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1892/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Assessment Year:2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Shivaji B. More
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

section 92C of the Act read with rule 10B of the Rules. Accordingly, we feel that TPO made proper enquiry and applied his mind to the details brought on record by assessee. He had agreed with the assessee that the international transactions covered by the TNMM analysis (including the intra-group service charge paid /payable to Nalco Pacific) adhered

MERCEDES-BENZ INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 9,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 14/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri G.D.Padmashaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.14/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Mercedes-Benz India Privatge The Acit, Circle-9, Pune. Limited, Vs E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase-Iii, . Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal.Khed, Pune – 410 501. Pan: Aabcm 1786 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala & Shri Darpan Kirpalani – Ar Revenue By Shri Prashant Gadekar – Dr Date Of Hearing 26/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2013-14 Arises Against The Acit, Circle-9, Pune’S Assessment Dated 07.11.2017 Framed In Furtherance To Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai “Drp”S Directions Dated 14.09.2017 Passed In Objection No.27, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W. S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

section 92C(3)/92CA(1) and hence, the same is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The transfer pricing adjustment and the Transfer Pricing Order passed should be quashed as being bad in law or illegal or void ab initio. Ground No. 2 - General ground related to Transfer pricing adjustment amounting to Rs.4,81,00,000 Erred

TETRA PAK INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DY.CIT, CIR.7, PUNE, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 111/PUN/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.111/Pun/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Tetra Pak India Private Ltd., Mayfair Towers, Wakdewadi, Shivajinagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaact3467B बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-7, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri S. B. Prasad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Tetra Pak India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Appellant’) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253(1)(D) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Act’), Against The Order Dated 25 November 2010 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Circle 7 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Assessing Officer’) Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Act In Pursuance Of The Directions Dated 20 September 2010 Issued By The Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Honorable Drp’), On The Following Grounds: On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Honorable Drp & Consequentially The Learned Ao Have: I Grounds Of Objections In Respect Of Transfer Pricing Adjustment

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253(1)(d)

Transfer Pricing Order u/s.92CA(3) ii. Capital expenditure Rs.10,35,850/- iii. Warranty provision Rs.1,01,98,196/- iv. Provision for leave Rs.31,99,327/- Rs.43,20,81,216/- encashment Business Income Rs.36,72,57,361/- Less: Set off Business loss A.Y. 2000-01 and 2001-02 Rs.28,69,04,753/- and unabsorbed depreciation Rs.8

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. VENTURA (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1800/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1788/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ventura (India) Pvt. Ltd., Wing C, Marisoft, Kalyani Nagar Annex, Vadgaon Sheri, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aabce3274C Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 7, Pune

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 10ASection 143(3)

transfer pricing proceeding is that the contours of an un-controlled transaction shall reflect a measure of arm's length price of the tested international transaction. The un-controlled transaction, if it reflects a loss, would not normally be excludible unless any peculiarity in such un-controlled transaction is brought out. For instance, the un-controlled transaction

VENTURA (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1788/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1788/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ventura (India) Pvt. Ltd., Wing C, Marisoft, Kalyani Nagar Annex, Vadgaon Sheri, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aabce3274C Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 7, Pune

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 10ASection 143(3)

transfer pricing proceeding is that the contours of an un-controlled transaction shall reflect a measure of arm's length price of the tested international transaction. The un-controlled transaction, if it reflects a loss, would not normally be excludible unless any peculiarity in such un-controlled transaction is brought out. For instance, the un-controlled transaction

SAS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, Ground No‟s

ITA 1959/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviphysical Court Of Hearing आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1959/Pun/2018 निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sas Research & Development The Asst. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited, Vs Income Tax, Circle-6, Pune. Level1, 2A & 3, Tower 5, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, Pune – 411 0103 Pan: Aaecs 8099 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal– Ar Revenue By Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav - Dr Date Of Hearing 11/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Ss Viswanethra Ravi, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6, Pune Dated 31.10.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Inappropriate Transfer Pricing Adjustment Even Though The Pricing Of All International Transactions Of The Appellant Was At Arm’S Length Erred On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law By Making/Confirming Transfer Pricing Adjustment By Rejecting The Analysis Undertaken By The Appellant To Determine Arm‟S Length Price Of Its International Transactions Pertaining To Rendering Of Software Development Support, Consultancy & Training Services To The Aes. 2. Inappropriate Rejection Of The Transfer Pricing Documentation Appropriately Maintained By The Appellant Erred On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law By Inappropriately Rejecting The Transfer Pricing Documentation Appropriately Maintained By The Appellant & By Inappropriately Conducting A Fresh Search For Benchmarking The Appellant‟S International Transactions.

Transfer Pricing Guidelines provide fundamental principle that the adjustment made should be reasonably accurate. None of the workings on the risk adjustment can be considered reasonably accurate. The assessee has requested for risk adjustment. This issue is also considered. “Thus, there is no unanimity on the issue of granting risk adjustment, leave alone prescribing of sound methodology to grant risk

M/S. SCHLUMBERGER INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 640/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.640/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11 M/S. Schlumberger India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Schlumberger Global Support Centre Ltd.-India Branch) Office No.701, 7Th Floor, Building No.9, Commerzone, Survey No.144/145, Samrat Ashok Path, Off Airport Road, Yerwada अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411006 …. Pan: Aalcs2048C Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income Tax (It)-Ii, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune

For Appellant: Shri Kamal SawhneyFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)Section 92D

79,160/- and other income of Rs.37,24,307/-. The net profit before tax and prior period items was Rs.50,66,212/-. The Assessing Officer in the draft assessment order passed under section 144C(1) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act had vide para 4 taken note of transfer pricing

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1650/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1650/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-09 Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Midc, Kharadi Knowledge Park, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kharadi, Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aabce4323Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(2), Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 92C

section 154 of the Act. 9. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 10. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that ground of appeal No.1 raised by assessee was general in nature. With regard to issue in ground of appeal No.2, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that

SYNECHRON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

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

ITA 1692/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1692/Pun/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Synechron Technologies Private Limited Cedar Building, Ascendas International, Tech Park Pune, Plot No.18, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Pune-411 057. Pan : Aaics2894R .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 144C(5)Section 92C(2)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act without considering the fact that adjustment to the income of the Appellant is mainly on account of difference of opinion and interpretation of provisions between the Appellant and the learned AO/ Transfer Pricing Officer.” 2. At the very outset, referring to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

QUBIX BUSINESS PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1994/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80

79,81,391 as compared to the book profits at INR 27,07,96,737 offered in the return of income. 3.2 The NFAC / Ld.AO erred in not providing the Appellant with an opportunity of being heard in response to the adjustments of book profits under section 115JB of the Act during the assessment proceedings and transfer pricing

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PVT.LTD,,AURNAGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1763/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

Section 143(3)

transfer pricing addition on this count, in the prevailing facts is, ergo, not allowed. Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd., 30. Having seen that neither the ALP determination of the assessee nor the Revenue is as per law, the next thing is to find out if the payment by the assessee in respect of regional services

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PVT.LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1736/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

Section 143(3)

transfer pricing addition on this count, in the prevailing facts is, ergo, not allowed. Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd., 30. Having seen that neither the ALP determination of the assessee nor the Revenue is as per law, the next thing is to find out if the payment by the assessee in respect of regional services

SANDVIK ASIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DCIT CIR.- 10,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1459/PUN/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1459/Pun/2010 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 220(2)Section 244ASection 32

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA(3) of the Act. The assessee then filed 5 objections to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the Assessing Officer passed final order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act, dated 08.10.2010 and upheld all the additions proposed in the draft assessment order, since the DRP dismissed all the objections