Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The ITAT held that the final assessment order under s.143(3) was invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to issue a mandatory draft assessment order under s.144C(1) for an eligible assessee (foreign company). This procedural violation constituted a non-curable defect, as it denied the assessee's statutory right to raise grievances before finalization of the assessment. The Revenue did not dispute that the assessee qualified as an "eligible assessee" under s.144C(15)(ii), which required the issuance of a draft order. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment order, determining that such procedural non-compliance could not be remedied retrospectively.
The ITAT held that the final assessment order under s.143(3) was invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to issue a mandatory draft assessment order under s.144C(1) for an eligible assessee (foreign company). This procedural violation constituted a non-curable defect, as it denied the assessee's statutory right to raise grievances before finalization of the assessment. The Revenue did not dispute that the assessee qualified as an "eligible assessee" under s.144C(15)(ii), which required the issuance of a draft order. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment order, determining that such procedural non-compliance could not be remedied retrospectively.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.