Issues: Whether refund arising after an assessment under Section 201 or an appellate order can be made conditional upon filing Form 26B or withheld against outstanding demands without an order under Section 245.

Analysis: Section 201 concerns assessment of tax deducted at source, whereas Section 200A, Rule 31A and Form 26B govern processing and adjustment of TDS statements at the CPC stage before assessment. A refund quantified upon an assessment under Section 201 or pursuant to an appellate order is a vested and crystallised entitlement, with applicable interest. The Form 26B procedure does not govern such refund. Withholding or adjustment of the quantified refund is permissible only through a legally passed order under Section 245; outstanding demands, including demands relating to associated TANs, cannot by themselves justify non-payment.

Conclusion: Form 26B cannot be compelled for refund arising from an assessment under Section 201 or an appellate order, and the refund cannot be withheld absent a lawful order under Section 245. The assessee is entitled to payment of the quantified refund with applicable statutory interest.

Outcome: Writ petition disposed of with a direction to consider the representations within four weeks.

Issues: (i) Whether rejection of the books of account under Section 145(3) was legally infirm; (ii) Whether the estimation of income and restriction of fee-refund credit gave rise to a substantial question of law; (iii) Whether the Tribunal exceeded the scope of the Revenue's appeal in examining the fee-refund relief.

Issue (i): Whether rejection of the books of account under Section 145(3) was legally infirm.

Analysis: In an appeal under Section 260A, factual findings based on appreciation of evidence are not open to reassessment unless perverse, unsupported by evidence, or contrary to law. The rejection was founded on seized material and was affirmed after appraisal of the books and material on record. No perversity or legal error was established.

Conclusion: The rejection of the books of account was valid, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the estimation of income and restriction of fee-refund credit gave rise to a substantial question of law.

Analysis: Once the books were validly rejected, determination of income and acceptance of the claimed refunds were matters of factual estimation based on the available material. A request for a different computation or fresh verification of transactions does not by itself raise a substantial question of law.

Conclusion: The estimation of income and fee-refund credit raised no substantial question of law, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the Tribunal exceeded the scope of the Revenue's appeal in examining the fee-refund relief.

Analysis: The Revenue had challenged the relief granted in relation to the addition, and the assessee had filed a cross-objection against the addition sustained. The fee-refund relief was consequently within the matters placed before the Tribunal for determination.

Conclusion: The Tribunal did not exceed the scope of the appeal, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's factual determinations concerning the accounts, income estimation, and fee refunds remained undisturbed for want of perversity or any question of law.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 260A, factual findings on rejection of accounts and consequential income estimation cannot be reopened unless shown to be perverse, unsupported by evidence, or contrary to law.

Issues: Whether an appeal by a non-filer could be dismissed as non-maintainable under Section 249(4)(b) without examining the assessee's claim that no advance tax was payable.

Analysis: Section 249(4)(b) requires a non-filer to pay an amount equal to the advance tax payable, subject to exemption by the Commissioner (Appeals) upon an application showing good and sufficient reason. Advance tax under Section 209(1) is based on computation by the assessee or by the Assessing Officer. As neither had computed advance tax, the claim that no taxable income existed and, consequently, no advance tax was payable could not be summarily disregarded. Although no exemption application had been filed, the assessee was required to be afforded an opportunity to establish the inapplicability of Section 249(4)(b) or seek exemption under its proviso.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeals as infructuous for non-compliance with Section 249(4)(b) was set aside, and the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to reconsider their admissibility and, where appropriate, adjudicate them on merits.

Issues: Whether the short-term capital loss on sale of unlisted shares could be disallowed as an artificial loss generated through a colourable device despite the transactions being accepted as genuine.

Analysis: The purchase and subsequent sale of shares were supported by banking records, share-transfer documentation and registration in the company records. The Revenue did not dispute the actual execution, ownership, consideration, or genuineness of either transaction, and produced no adverse material establishing a pre-arranged arrangement lacking commercial substance. The sale price to the assessee's husband was also higher than the price at which comparable shares were acquired by the assessee's son. A legally valid and genuine transaction does not become non-genuine merely because it results in a capital loss or reduces tax liability; tax planning is distinct from tax evasion.

Conclusion: The disallowance of the short-term capital loss was unjustified and the addition was directed to be deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the difference between the purchase consideration and stamp-duty value of agricultural land was taxable as income from other sources.

Analysis: Section 56(2)(vii)(b) applies to property constituting a capital asset. The nature of the purchased land as agricultural land was not disputed by the lower authorities. Agricultural land outside the definition of capital asset falls outside the scope of the deeming provision.

Conclusion: The addition based on the difference between the purchase price and stamp-duty value of the agricultural land was not sustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether proceedings against an other person could validly be initiated under Section 153C where the jurisdictional satisfaction was recorded after 01.04.2021.

Analysis: The search preceded 01.04.2021, but the satisfaction concerning the assessee as the other person was recorded only on 16.03.2024. The relevant jurisdictional event therefore arose after the amended reassessment framework introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 became applicable. Section 153C could not be invoked in such circumstances; any reassessment action had to conform to Sections 147 and 148.

Conclusion: The notices and consequential proceedings under Section 153C were without jurisdiction and could not be sustained.

Issues: Whether royalty paid under a licence agreement to an unrelated foreign licensor could be benchmarked and disallowed by applying transfer-pricing principles.

Analysis: The licensor was not disclosed as a related party in the financial statements or other material submitted to the tax authorities. No independent material established a deemed associated-enterprise relationship through a prior agreement or arrangement involving an independent third party. Transfer-pricing provisions and the arm's length principle apply to transactions between associated enterprises, whereas an independent third-party transaction does not carry a presumption of profit shifting. Further, Section 37 could not be used to benchmark or alter the royalty rate mutually agreed by independent contracting parties merely on the basis that it exceeded rates derived from a royalty database.

Conclusion: The royalty transaction was an independent third-party transaction to which transfer-pricing provisions were inapplicable; the disallowance of royalty expenditure was unsustainable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether Tata Elxsi Limited, TTEC India Customer Solutions Private Limited and Cheers Interactive (India) Private Limited were functionally comparable to the assessee for benchmarking its provision of information technology enabled support services under the Transactional Net Margin Method.

Analysis: Tata Elxsi Limited performed design and engineering, digital content creation and research and development activities, earned predominantly software-development revenue and possessed substantial intangibles, unlike the assessee's technical testing and resource-deployment services. TTEC India Customer Solutions Private Limited rendered business process outsourcing, technology-solution and AI-enhanced services, and was functionally different from the assessee. Cheers Interactive (India) Private Limited had diverse information technology enabled and other service activities without segmental information, preventing a reliable comparison. Functional and risk-profile differences, as well as absence of segmental data for diversified activities, rendered these entities unsuitable comparables.

Conclusion: Tata Elxsi Limited, TTEC India Customer Solutions Private Limited and Cheers Interactive (India) Private Limited were directed to be excluded from the final set of comparables, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether deletion of the addition based on estimation of gross profit was justified despite deficiencies in the books of account and supporting purchase records.

Analysis: The declared gross-profit rates, after treating export-related and other specified expenditure as indirect expenses, worked out to 4.84% and 4.85%, broadly comparable with industry standards. However, material found during survey disclosed missing bank entries, unverifiable purchases, absence of bills and transport records, dealings with non-filers or stop-filers, and non-maintenance of stock registers. The assessee had only partly discharged its onus to explain the gross-profit ratio and the correctness of its books, while estimation of gross profit at 5% of total turnover was also not fully justified. A restricted lump-sum addition was considered appropriate after correct classification of direct and indirect expenses.

Conclusion: The deletion of the entire addition was modified, and a lump-sum addition of 5% of the gross profit of turnover was sustained for both assessment years; this finding is partly in favour of the Revenue.

Issues: Whether the long-term capital gain arising from sale of shares through the stock exchange could be treated as unexplained income on the basis of abnormal price appreciation, investigation material and alleged price manipulation.

Analysis: The purchase of shares, payment through banking channels, dematerialisation, sale through the stock exchange and receipt of sale consideration were supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence. No cogent material established that the assessee was connected with any manipulation, accommodation-entry arrangement or conversion of unaccounted money. Abnormal appreciation in the share price, investigation reports and regulatory action concerning the company could create suspicion but could not displace the evidentiary record. The binding jurisdictional view on comparable facts prevailed over a conflicting non-jurisdictional decision relying on preponderance of probabilities.

Conclusion: The share transactions were genuine and the assessee was entitled to claim long-term capital gain; the additions treating the gain as unexplained income and the related alleged commission were unsustainable.

Issues: (i) Whether a transfer-pricing mark-up could be applied to reimbursements recovered from group entities on a cost-to-cost basis; (ii) Whether the arm's length price of the licence-fee payment for distribution rights required fresh benchmarking under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method; (iii) Whether foreign taxes not eligible for credit could be considered for deduction under Section 37(1).

Issue (i): Whether a transfer-pricing mark-up could be applied to reimbursements recovered from group entities on a cost-to-cost basis.

Analysis: Reimbursements from domestic group entities were outside the scope of international transactions. Business-promotion expenditure and proportionate third-party costs, including audience-research and travel costs, were paid to third parties and recovered without value addition; they could not be characterised as services rendered to associated enterprises. However, the cross-charges for salaries and wages recovered from overseas associated enterprises lacked adequate details of the services shared or received, including service records or log sheets.

Conclusion: The mark-up adjustment on domestic-group reimbursements and third-party cost reimbursements was directed to be deleted upon verification, in favour of the assessee; the adjustment relating to overseas salary and wage reimbursements was sustained against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the arm's length price of the licence-fee payment for distribution rights required fresh benchmarking under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method.

Analysis: Software and IT-product distributors were not functionally comparable to a television-channel distributor where direct licence-agreement comparables were available. The selected Comparable Uncontrolled Price analysis had omitted four assertedly comparable licence agreements, including agreements considered similar at the dispute-resolution stage.

Conclusion: The licence-fee benchmarking issue was remitted for fresh determination under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method after considering the four identified comparable agreements and granting the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

Issue (iii): Whether foreign taxes not eligible for credit could be considered for deduction under Section 37(1).

Analysis: Although a fresh claim could not be entertained by the assessing authority without verification, the appellate forum could admit it. The claim for deduction of foreign taxes required verification against the additional evidence, including foreign-tax-credit particulars, Form 67 and withholding-tax certificates, and determination under the applicable law.

Conclusion: The foreign-tax deduction claim was remitted to the assessing authority for verification and determination in accordance with law, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Cost reimbursements involving no value addition are excluded from the impugned mark-up adjustment, except for inadequately substantiated overseas employee cross-charges; the licence-fee and foreign-tax claims require fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: A pure reimbursement of third-party expenditure recovered on a cost-to-cost basis, without value addition or provision of services, cannot be subjected to a transfer-pricing mark-up.

Issues: (i) Validity of the Dispute Resolution Panel's rectified directions issued on an application moved by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Departmental Representative), and the consequential assessment order; (ii) Sustainability of transfer-pricing adjustments for advertisement, marketing and promotion expenditure determined through the Bright Line Test and intensity-adjusted Transactional Net Margin Method.

Issue (i): Validity of the Dispute Resolution Panel's rectified directions issued on an application moved by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Departmental Representative), and the consequential assessment order.

Analysis: Rule 13 permits rectification of an apparent mistake either suo motu or upon an application by the eligible assessee or the Assessing Officer. The rectificatory directions were initiated on an application by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Departmental Representative), who was not an authorised applicant under the Rule. Further, replacement of the originally directed benchmarking approach with the intensity-adjusted TNMM involved a substantive change of transfer-pricing methodology and amounted to review or change of opinion, rather than correction of an error apparent from the record. The consequential protective addition also conflicted with the binding directions under Section 144C(10).

Conclusion: The rectified directions and the consequential rectified assessment order were invalid and were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Sustainability of transfer-pricing adjustments for advertisement, marketing and promotion expenditure determined through the Bright Line Test and intensity-adjusted Transactional Net Margin Method.

Analysis: The Bright Line Test and the intensity-adjusted TNMM approach adopted for benchmarking the advertisement, marketing and promotion expenditure were treated as unsustainable. The intensity-based approach, by artificially adjusting comparable margins for alleged higher marketing intensity, was not accepted as a permissible basis for the adjustment.

Conclusion: The transfer-pricing adjustments based on the Bright Line Test and intensity-adjusted TNMM were deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment orders founded on the impugned advertisement, marketing and promotion adjustments, including the subsequent rectificatory action, could not be sustained; the remaining grounds were left open where academic or consequential.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification jurisdiction cannot be invoked by an unauthorised applicant or used to substitute a debatable transfer-pricing methodology, as such action constitutes impermissible review rather than correction of an apparent error.

Issues: (i) Whether the selected entities were functionally comparable for benchmarking the administrative/marketing support services and IT-enabled services segments; (ii) Whether the claimed inclusion of certain comparables and correction of comparable margins required fresh verification; (iii) Whether economic adjustment for differences in risk profile was allowable.

Issue (i): Whether the selected entities were functionally comparable for benchmarking the administrative/marketing support services and IT-enabled services segments.

Analysis: Entities engaged in engineering consultancy, architectural services, procurement, agency or technical services, outsourcing activities, or knowledge process outsourcing were not comparable with the relevant support-services and IT-enabled services segments. Entities lacking segmental information could not be retained where their mixed operations prevented reliable comparison. A comparable could not be rejected solely because of a different financial-year ending where suitable adjustment was possible. Certain proposed entities were rejected for functional dissimilarity or absence of segmental details.

Conclusion: The specified functionally dissimilar entities were directed to be excluded, and Ma Foi Management Consultants Ltd. was directed to be included; this issue is in favour of the assessee to that extent.

Issue (ii): Whether the claimed inclusion of certain comparables and correction of comparable margins required fresh verification.

Analysis: Inclusion of R System International Ltd. depended on production of complete segmental details. Financial information for Motif India Infotech Pvt. Ltd. and service-income data for Datamatics Financial Services Ltd. required verification. Claimed corrections in margins of identified comparables also required factual reconciliation.

Conclusion: The proposed inclusions and margin corrections were restored for fresh verification and recomputation, subject to the assessee establishing the requisite material; this issue is partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether economic adjustment for differences in risk profile was allowable.

Analysis: The claim for adjustment based on differences between the assessee's risk profile and that of comparable companies required fresh adjudication on supporting material under the applicable comparability rule.

Conclusion: The claim for economic adjustment was restored for fresh adjudication; this issue is partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The arm's length price requires consequential recomputation after the directed comparable exclusions and inclusion, verification of the remaining proposed comparables and margin corrections, and fresh determination of the risk-adjustment claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Transfer-pricing comparables must satisfy functional comparability and permit reliable segmental evaluation; a different accounting year alone does not justify rejection where suitable adjustment can be made.

Issues: (i) Whether goodwill of Rs.65,00,000 could be further disallowed in rectification proceedings under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether the claim for set-off of brought-forward business losses required verification and remand.

Issue (i): Whether goodwill of Rs.65,00,000 could be further disallowed in rectification proceedings under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 154 permits rectification of a mistake apparent from the record. The assessee had already added back the goodwill write-off in computing taxable income, whereas the same amount was again added in the original assessment, resulting in an undisputed double addition. The rectification order was ambiguous as to whether it purported to disallow goodwill itself or only depreciation consequential to the earlier disallowance. That ambiguity could not operate prejudicially where the record established the double addition.

Conclusion: The goodwill amount could not be further disallowed in the rectification order and is to be deleted.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim for set-off of brought-forward business losses required verification and remand.

Analysis: The claim for set-off had been raised but remained unadjudicated, and the quantum and eligibility of the losses required factual verification from departmental records for earlier assessment years.

Conclusion: The claim for set-off of brought-forward business losses is remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification and determination in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The rectification is ineffective insofar as it further disallows goodwill already added back by the assessee, while the entitlement to set-off of prior-year business losses remains subject to verification.

Issues: (i) Validity of assessments framed under the regular assessment provisions after a post-1 April 2021 search, including additions founded on third-party seized material; (ii) sustainability of additions for unsecured loans as unexplained credits and consequential alleged commission; (iii) sustainability of additions for alleged cash receipts from a group concern; (iv) arm's length corporate guarantee commission; (v) transfer-pricing adjustment for delayed receivables from associated enterprises; (vi) disallowance relating to exempt income; (vii) deductibility of farmhouse rent used as a guest house; (viii) eligibility of manufacturing-related receipts for deduction under section 80IB.

Issue (i): Validity of assessments framed under the regular assessment provisions after a post-1 April 2021 search, including additions founded on third-party seized material.

Analysis: Explanation 2 to section 148 treats a search initiated after 1 April 2021 as information suggesting escapement of income and requires recourse to the special reassessment mechanism. The pending regular scrutiny proceedings could not continue as an alternative route after search. Where documents were seized from a third party, clause (iv) of Explanation 2 further required recorded satisfaction that the material pertained to the assessee and prior statutory approval before its use. These mandatory jurisdictional safeguards were not followed.

Conclusion: The assessments framed under sections 143(3) read with sections 144B or 144C(3) were invalid and were quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Sustainability of additions for unsecured loans as unexplained credits and consequential alleged commission.

Analysis: The assessee established the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the lenders through tax records, corporate records, audited financial statements, loan agreements, confirmations, banking trails and evidence of repayment. Commercial expediency is not an additional statutory condition under section 68, and the obligation to establish the source of source was inapplicable for the relevant assessment years. Reliance on statements of persons unconnected with the lenders at the time of lending, without supply of statements or cross-examination, could not displace the documentary evidence. Interest on the loans had also been accepted as business expenditure.

Conclusion: The entire additions for unsecured loans under section 68 and the consequential additions for alleged commission under section 69C were deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Sustainability of additions for alleged cash receipts from a group concern.

Analysis: The alleged cash receipts rested substantially on an employee's statement. The seized diaries related to later years in respect of the earlier assessment years, with no corroborative material showing cash receipts, unaccounted sales or a financial trail for the relevant years. The statement was contradicted by other material and persons' statements, and cross-examination of the principal witness was not afforded. In the assessment year in which third-party material was directly relied upon, the prescribed procedure under Explanation 2(iv) to section 148 was independently not followed.

Conclusion: The additions for alleged unexplained cash receipts under section 69A were deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Arm's length corporate guarantee commission.

Analysis: The 0.40% commission charged by the assessee had been accepted for continuing guarantees in earlier years. For the fresh guarantee, the interest-saving approach attributed 50% of the associated enterprise's benefit to the assessee and supported the same rate. Adoption of a 0.50% rate merely because it had been accepted in other fact-specific decisions was not justified without displacing the assessee's benchmarking.

Conclusion: Corporate guarantee commission at 0.40% was accepted as arm's length and the residual adjustment was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Transfer-pricing adjustment for delayed receivables from associated enterprises.

Analysis: The assessee charged associated enterprises a substantially higher sale price than non-associated enterprises, thereby incorporating the working-capital impact of delayed realisation into the primary transaction. Delays were also commercially explainable in the circumstances. A separate notional-interest adjustment without establishing a distinct financing arrangement or examining the working-capital position would duplicate the adjustment and distort the arm's length analysis.

Conclusion: The adjustment for notional interest on delayed receivables was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vi): Disallowance relating to exempt income.

Analysis: Unlike the earlier years relied upon by the assessee, the assessment record for the relevant year contained the requisite satisfaction before invocation of section 14A and Rule 8D. The assessee did not rebut the finding that the statutory precondition had been met.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was sustained, against the assessee.

Issue (vii): Deductibility of farmhouse rent used as a guest house.

Analysis: The premises were supported by a lease agreement and board approval, and the evidence showed use of the substantial portion for hosting foreign clients and conducting business meetings. The limited residential portion used by the chairman had been separately subjected to tax as a perquisite. The rental income was disclosed by the recipient, and the expenditure had been accepted in earlier years without a change in facts.

Conclusion: The rent expenditure was allowable as business expenditure, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (viii): Eligibility of manufacturing-related receipts for deduction under section 80IB.

Analysis: Scrap sales, purchase discounts, insurance recoveries, remission or write-back of liabilities and similar receipts were found to have a direct nexus with the manufacturing activity of the eligible undertaking. The eligibility of such receipts had also been consistently accepted in the assessee's earlier years, while interest income had already been excluded from eligible profits.

Conclusion: Deduction under section 80IB was available for the manufacturing-related receipts, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The post-search assessment framework required reassessment under the statutory special procedure, while the substantive additions for loans, alleged cash receipts and transfer-pricing adjustments lacked the required evidentiary or benchmarking foundation; only the exempt-income disallowance survived.

Issues: Whether interest earned by a primary agricultural credit co-operative society on deposits with a co-operative bank registered as a co-operative society qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(d).

Analysis: Section 80P(2)(d) covers interest or dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society. The recipient societies had placed deposits with co-operative banks that were themselves registered co-operative societies. Interest received from those deposits therefore fell within the statutory deduction.

Conclusion: Interest earned from deposits with the registered co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(d); the additions towards such interest income were deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the maintenance, repair and allied services involving consumption of goods were classifiable as Works Contract Service and eligible for abatement; (ii) Whether charges collected for supply of electricity to individual flat owners were liable to service tax.

Issue (i): Whether the maintenance, repair and allied services involving consumption of goods were classifiable as Works Contract Service and eligible for abatement.

Analysis: Section 65B(54) of the Finance Act, 1994 covers a contract involving transfer of property in goods taxable as a sale, where the contract concerns, inter alia, repair or maintenance of a movable or immovable structure. The documentary material established purchase and consumption of goods in the maintenance activities, while invoices and VAT returns showed levy and payment of VAT alongside service tax. The services were therefore composite works contracts; the transfer of goods could not be subjected to service tax as a service component.

Conclusion: The services were Works Contract Service and the denial of abatement, service-tax demand, interest and penalties was unsustainable. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether charges collected for supply of electricity to individual flat owners were liable to service tax.

Analysis: Electricity supplied to users against payment constitutes goods, and its supply is a sale of goods rather than a service. Such a transaction falls outside the charging scope of service tax and the statutory concept of service. The contrary authority relied upon by Revenue was factually distinguishable, and the Department had also accepted the same legal position in comparable matters involving group units.

Conclusion: Electricity-supply charges were not liable to service tax, and the dropping of the related demand was valid. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The service-tax treatment of the maintenance contracts as taxable management, maintenance or repair services was displaced by their character as works contracts, and the electricity receipts remained outside the service-tax net.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a repair or maintenance contract involves taxable transfer of property in goods, it is a composite works contract; separately, supply of electricity for consideration is a sale of goods and not a taxable service.

Issues: Whether a final assessment against a non-resident assessee, passed without first issuing a draft assessment order under Section 144C, is valid.

Analysis: The assessee was a non-resident and the assessment involved a prejudicial variation. The statutory procedure required issuance of a draft assessment order before a final assessment could be made. The Assessing Officer directly passed the final assessment order without following that mandatory procedure. The omission was not a curable procedural irregularity.

Conclusion: The final assessment order was void for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of Section 144C, in favour of the assessee.