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...
HC held that the final assessment order passed by AO beyond the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) was invalid. AO received DRP direction on 29.12.2015 and was mandated to complete assessment within one month from end of December 2015, i.e., by 31.01.2016. However, AO passed the assessment order on 18.02.2016, exceeding the prescribed timeline. The court ruled that Section 144C(13) provisions are mandatory, not discretionary, requiring AO to complete assessment within specified timeframe upon receiving DRP directions under Sub-Section (5). Since AO failed to comply with statutory timeline, the assessment order was deemed invalid. Appellant's appeal was allowed based on procedural non-compliance with mandatory statutory provisions.
HC held that the final assessment order passed by AO beyond the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) was invalid. AO received DRP direction on 29.12.2015 and was mandated to complete assessment within one month from end of December 2015, i.e., by 31.01.2016. However, AO passed the assessment order on 18.02.2016, exceeding the prescribed timeline. The court ruled that Section 144C(13) provisions are mandatory, not discretionary, requiring AO to complete assessment within specified timeframe upon receiving DRP directions under Sub-Section (5). Since AO failed to comply with statutory timeline, the assessment order was deemed invalid. Appellant's appeal was allowed based on procedural non-compliance with mandatory statutory provisions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
