Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Transfer Pricing Officer's order was held invalid as it was issued beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 92CA(3A) of the Act read with Section 153. The ITAT ruled that the limitation period prescribed u/s 92CA(3A) is mandatory, and the TPO has no authority to breach this statutory provision by passing an order after the expiry of the prescribed time, which is 60 days prior to the due date for completion of assessment u/s 153. The word 'may' used in Section 92CA(3A) should be construed as 'shall' to prevent the TPO from allowing more time to pass the transfer pricing order, thereby violating the time limit for completion of assessment by the Assessing Officer u/s 153 read with Section 92CA(3). Consequently, the Assessing Officer was not available with the extended period of limitation for passing the assessment order u/s 153(4). The case was decided in favor of the assessee.
The Transfer Pricing Officer's order was held invalid as it was issued beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 92CA(3A) of the Act read with Section 153. The ITAT ruled that the limitation period prescribed u/s 92CA(3A) is mandatory, and the TPO has no authority to breach this statutory provision by passing an order after the expiry of the prescribed time, which is 60 days prior to the due date for completion of assessment u/s 153. The word 'may' used in Section 92CA(3A) should be construed as 'shall' to prevent the TPO from allowing more time to pass the transfer pricing order, thereby violating the time limit for completion of assessment by the Assessing Officer u/s 153 read with Section 92CA(3). Consequently, the Assessing Officer was not available with the extended period of limitation for passing the assessment order u/s 153(4). The case was decided in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
