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 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 
