Business deductions and transfer pricing issues: tribunal treatment of software write-offs, donation receipts, warranty provisions, and related expens...
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in passing the assessment order invoking Section 144C(3) on the ground that the assessee did not file objections within the specified time u/s 144C(2)(b). The assessee had uploaded Form 35A on the Income Tax Portal and sent it physically within 30 days of receiving the draft order, fulfilling the requirement. The concept of a "draft order" was introduced with the faceless assessment scheme u/s 144B. Therefore, the assessment order and the DRP's order refraining from variations were contrary to Section 144C and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the provisional attachment u/s 281B also did not survive as it had already lived its life of 6 years without extension by the Assessing Officer after passing the assessment order.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in passing the assessment order invoking Section 144C(3) on the ground that the assessee did not file objections within the specified time u/s 144C(2)(b). The assessee had uploaded Form 35A on the Income Tax Portal and sent it physically within 30 days of receiving the draft order, fulfilling the requirement. The concept of a "draft order" was introduced with the faceless assessment scheme u/s 144B. Therefore, the assessment order and the DRP's order refraining from variations were contrary to Section 144C and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the provisional attachment u/s 281B also did not survive as it had already lived its life of 6 years without extension by the Assessing Officer after passing the assessment order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
