Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
The ITAT held that the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) lacks jurisdiction to direct the Transfer Pricing Officer or Assessing Officer in second-round proceedings after the case was set aside by the Tribunal, particularly when a final assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(3) had already been passed. The tribunal determined that section 144C and the Income-tax (Dispute Resolution Panel) Rules, 2009 do not confer such powers on the DRP. Relying on Undercarriage and Tractor Parts (P.) Ltd., which established that DRP can only give directions in pending assessment proceedings, the ITAT ruled that both the transfer pricing order under section 92CA(3) and the final assessment order were void ab-initio and accordingly quashed them.
The ITAT held that the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) lacks jurisdiction to direct the Transfer Pricing Officer or Assessing Officer in second-round proceedings after the case was set aside by the Tribunal, particularly when a final assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(3) had already been passed. The tribunal determined that section 144C and the Income-tax (Dispute Resolution Panel) Rules, 2009 do not confer such powers on the DRP. Relying on Undercarriage and Tractor Parts (P.) Ltd., which established that DRP can only give directions in pending assessment proceedings, the ITAT ruled that both the transfer pricing order under section 92CA(3) and the final assessment order were void ab-initio and accordingly quashed them.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
