Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The Appellate Tribunal considered the issue of time limit for issuance of Transfer Pricing (TP) Order u/s 92CA(3A). Referring to a case law, it was held that the TP order passed on 01.11.2019 was barred by limitation. The TP adjustment became non-est due to the time limitation, making the assessee ineligible u/s 144C(15)(b). Consequently, Section 144C machinery provisions did not apply. The assessment should have been completed within 33 months from the end of the assessment year. Any order passed beyond the statutory time limit was deemed invalid. As a result, corporate additions in the assessment order were not sustainable, leading to the appeal being allowed on legal grounds.
The Appellate Tribunal considered the issue of time limit for issuance of Transfer Pricing (TP) Order u/s 92CA(3A). Referring to a case law, it was held that the TP order passed on 01.11.2019 was barred by limitation. The TP adjustment became non-est due to the time limitation, making the assessee ineligible u/s 144C(15)(b). Consequently, Section 144C machinery provisions did not apply. The assessment should have been completed within 33 months from the end of the assessment year. Any order passed beyond the statutory time limit was deemed invalid. As a result, corporate additions in the assessment order were not sustainable, leading to the appeal being allowed on legal grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
