Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Endoscopy in Karl Storz Endoscopy India Private ... vs National Faceless Assessment Centre, ... on 2 September, 2024Matching Fragments
order dated 28th October 2021,
restrained the Respondent from
taking any action pursuant to
the impugned assessment
orders, notice of demand and
penalty notices.
Limitation
The order of ITAT remitting
the matter was passed on April
02, 2018, and therefore, the
limitation of passing a legally
valid final assessment order
expired on December 31, 2020,
as per Section 153(3) r.w.
Section 153(4) of the Act. The
assessment order was passed on
September 29, 2021, which is
beyond limitation.
7 Axalta Coating 2018-19 The Respondents have illegally
Systems India proceeded to pass the final
Private Limited assessment order (Annexure P-
v. NFAC 3). The TPO passed the order
on 31.07.2021 (Annexure P-2)
W.P.(C) and the Respondents instead of
12319/2021 following the binding mandate
of Section 144C and instead of
issuing the draft assessment
order, have directly proceeded
to pass the impugned final
assessment order and have
raised the demand as well and
initiated penalty proceedings.
8 Ramtech 2017-18 The Respondents have illegally
Consulting v. proceeded to pass the final
NFAC assessment order (Annexure P-
7). The TPO passed the order
W.P.(C) on 29.01.2021 (Annexure P-1)
4043/2022 and the Respondents instead of
following the binding mandate
of Section 144C and instead of
issuing the draft assessment
order, have directly proceeded
to pass the impugned final
assessment order and have
raised the demand aswell and
initiated penalty proceedings.
The Respondents in the first
round had passed the draft
assessment order and also final
assessment order which was
set-aside by this Hon'ble Court
on 14.07.2021 (P-5).
Subsequently, the Respondents
have not followed the mandate
of law and have not passed any
draft assessment order.
Thereafter the Petitioner has
also filed a CM application for
amendment of writ for raising
issue of DIN which Hon'ble
Court has taken on record vide
order dated 13.12.2023.
9 Software one 2017-18 The Respondents have illegally
India Pvt. Ltd proceeded to pass the final
v. NeAC assessment order (Annexure P-
3). The TPO passed the order
W.P.(C) on 30.01.2021 (Annexure P-2)
5913/2022 and the Respondents instead of
following the binding mandate
of Section 144C and instead of
issuing the draft assessment
order, have directly proceeded
to pass the impugned final
assessment order and have
raised the demand aswell and
initiated penalty proceedings.
10 Smart Cube 2011-12 Income-tax return (ITR) filed In the 2nd round of
India Pvt Ltd v. by the Petitioner returning proceedings pursuant
JCIT income of Rs.3,19,590 was to remand by the
selected for scrutiny and notice ITAT, despite the
W.P.(C) was issued under section Petitioner qualifying
6365/2022 143(2) of the Act. as ‗eligible assessee'
Assessing Officer (AO) passed in terms of section
draft assessment order (DAO) 144C(15), draft
dated 27.02.2015 under section assessment order was
143(3) read with section 144C, not passed by the
making addition of Respondent, instead,
Rs.7,34,36,867, which included assessment was
transfer pricing adjustment of straightaway finalized
Rs.5,52,01,139 and by way of final
disallowance of deduction assessment order,
under section 10B of the Act of which was
Rs.1,82,35,728. accompanied by
Objections were filed by the notice of demand and
Petitioner against the DAO notice for initiating
before the DRP, which issued penalty
directions dated 14.09.2015 proceedings.
under section 144(5),
confirming the additions. No opportunity was
Pursuant to the same, the AO provided to the
passed the final assessment Petitioner to file
order dated 19.10.2015 under objections before the
section 143(3) assessing the DRP, even though the
total income at Rs.7,37,56,457. Respondent was
Said final assessment order was mandated by law to
challenged before the ITAT, first forward draft
which remanded the issue of assessment order to
transfer pricing adjustment to the Petitioner under
the TPO and the issue of section 144C(1),
disallowance of deduction thereby violating the
under section 10B of the Act to substantive rights of
the AO vide order dated the Petitioner as
29.07.2020. codified under
In set aside proceedings, TPO section 144C of the
passed order dated 29.03.2022 Act
under section 92CA(3),
proposing to make transfer
pricing adjustment of
Rs.1,43,77,827. The AO passed
the final assessment order
dated 30.03.2022 under section
143(3) read with section 254,
assessing the total income of
the Petitioner at Rs.
3,29,33,145, after making
revised transfer pricing
adjustment as proposed by the
TPO and disallowance of
deduction claimed under
section 10B of the Act.
Said final assessment order was
accompanied by notice of
demand issued under section
156 and notice issued under
section 274 read with section
271(1)(c) of the Act for
initiating penalty proceedings.
11 Aditya Talwar 2017-18 The Respondents have illegally
vs. DCIT- proceeded to pass the final
assessment order (Annexure P-
W.P.(C) 3). The Petitioner is admittedly
6786/2022 a non-resident and the
Respondents instead of
following the binding mandate
of Section 144C and instead of
issuing the draft assessment
order, have directly proceeded
to pass the impugned final
assessment order and have
raised the demand as well and
initiated penalty proceedings.
12 Swarovski 2008-09 Present writ petitions have Whether a final
India Private been filed challenging the assessment order
Limited v. assessment orders dated 22nd passed without
DCIT, March 2022 for the Assessment passing a draft
Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 and assessment order as
W.P.(C) 23rd March 2022 for the mandated under
12735/2022 Assessment Year 2007-08, Section 144C of the
13 Swarovski 2007-08 passed by the assessing officer Act is
India Private in remand proceedings and the tenable or not?
Limited v. consequent demand and
DCIT, penalty notices without passing
a draft assessment order as Whether it is
W.P.(C) mandated under Section 144C mandatory for the
12784/2022 of the Act. assessing officer to
This Hon'ble Court vide its pass a draft
order dated 5th September assessment order
2022, restrained the under Section 144C
Respondent from taking any of the Act during
coercive action pursuant to the remand proceedings?
14 Swarovski 2009-10 impugned assessment orders,
India Private notice of demand and penalty
Limited v. notices.
DCIT, Limitation
For AY 2007-08
W.P.(C) The order of ITAT remitting
12785/2022 the matter was passed on July
25, 2019, and therefore, the
limitation of passing a legally
valid final assessment order
expired on March 31, 2022, as
per Section 153(3) r.w. Section
153(4) of the Act. The final
assessment order was passed
on March 23, 2022.
For AY 2008-09
The order of ITAT remitting
the matter was passed on July
25, 2019, and therefore, the
limitation of passing a legally
valid final assessment order
expired on March 31, 2022, as
per Section 153(3) r.w. Section
153(4) of the Act. The final
assessment order was passed
on March 23, 2022.
For AY 2009-10
The order of ITAT remitting
the matter was passed on July
25, 2019, and therefore, the
limitation of passing a legally
valid final assessment order
expired on March 31, 2022, as
per Section 153(3) r.w. Section
153(4) of the Act. . The final
assessment order was passed
on March 23, 2022.
15 Karl Storz 2020-21 On 08.01.2021, the Petitioner Whether a final
Endoscopy filed the return of income for assessment order
India Private the subject year declaring total passed without
Limited v. income of INR 26,27,44,510. passing a draft
NFAC On 30.07.2023, the TPO vide assessment order as
its order under section 92CA(3) mandated under
W.P. (C) No. of the Act, proposed an upward Section 144C of the
14314/2023 adjustment on account of AMP Act is tenable or not?
expenditure of INR
18,61,30,041.
On 30.07.2023, the Respondent
No.1, instead of passing a draft
assessment order as mandated
by the provisions of section
144C(1) of the Act,
straightaway passed the final
assessment order dated
30.07.2023 under section
143(3) read with section 144B
of the Act, confirming the
additions made by the TPO.
The final assessment order
dated 30.07.2023 was
accompanied by a notice of
demand issued under section
156 of the Act (along with the
computation sheet), and a
penalty notice issued under
section 274 read with section
270A of the Act, thereby
resulting in violation of
mandatory provisions of
section 144C of the Act.
16 PCIT vs 2008-09 The assessee is company Whether on the facts
Wickwood incorporated in BVI on and circumstances of