Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
AO had no jurisdiction to frame the final assessment order on 27.01.2020 u/s. 144(3) of the Act, since he was divested of jurisdiction to pass final order between 27.01.2020 to 31.01.2020. Even the AO could not have framed the final order u/s. 144C(3) on 27.01.2020 because the assessee had filed its objection before the DRP on 24.01.2020, the DRP is in seisn of the case of assessee and between 24.01.2020 and till the DRP gives direction as per section 144C(5) AO does not enjoy jurisdiction over the assessee’s case for AY 2016-17. - AT
AO had no jurisdiction to frame the final assessment order on 27.01.2020 u/s. 144(3) of the Act, since he was divested of jurisdiction to pass final order between 27.01.2020 to 31.01.2020. Even the AO could not have framed the final order u/s. 144C(3) on 27.01.2020 because the assessee had filed its objection before the DRP on 24.01.2020, the DRP is in seisn of the case of assessee and between 24.01.2020 and till the DRP gives direction as per section 144C(5) AO does not enjoy jurisdiction over the assessee’s case for AY 2016-17. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
