Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
981 to 1000 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case involves the validity of a final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 144(C)(3) beyond the period of limitation. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) plays a crucial role in deciding on objections raised by the assessee. The law mandates that the assessment order must be passed within one month from the end of the month in which the objections filing period expires. The DRP can confirm, reduce, or enhance the variations proposed in the draft order. In this case, the DRP rejected the objections as being time-barred, which effectively confirmed the draft order. However, this confirmation does not extend the limitation for passing the final order. As the DRP's directions were not communicated as required by law, the final order passed by the AO u/s 144C(13) was found to be without jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeals were allowed.
The case involves the validity of a final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 144(C)(3) beyond the period of limitation. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) plays a crucial role in deciding on objections raised by the assessee. The law mandates that the assessment order must be passed within one month from the end of the month in which the objections filing period expires. The DRP can confirm, reduce, or enhance the variations proposed in the draft order. In this case, the DRP rejected the objections as being time-barred, which effectively confirmed the draft order. However, this confirmation does not extend the limitation for passing the final order. As the DRP's directions were not communicated as required by law, the final order passed by the AO u/s 144C(13) was found to be without jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeals were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
