Registration under s.12AB upheld; CIT(Exemptions) exceeded jurisdiction by deciding taxability instead of preliminary verification and registration di...
Dependent Agent PE unresolved for lack of factual inquiry; arm's-length distribution accepted; royalty claim rejected; 15% refund interest (Section 24...
HC held that the final assessment order dated 31.08.2016 is barred by limitation. The court ruled that where an objection is filed, the AO must determine both receipt date of the draft assessment order and whether the objection was filed within the 30-day period prescribed by s.144C(2); only an objection filed within that period restrains the AO from completing assessment. The AO could not lawfully rely on the assessee's asserted service date without verifying actual delivery (e.g., postal tracking) and, having failed to exercise due diligence, wrongly computed the 30-day period from 14.03.2016. Because the objection was belated, the Tribunal rightly found the assessment time-barred.
HC held that the final assessment order dated 31.08.2016 is barred by limitation. The court ruled that where an objection is filed, the AO must determine both receipt date of the draft assessment order and whether the objection was filed within the 30-day period prescribed by s.144C(2); only an objection filed within that period restrains the AO from completing assessment. The AO could not lawfully rely on the assessee's asserted service date without verifying actual delivery (e.g., postal tracking) and, having failed to exercise due diligence, wrongly computed the 30-day period from 14.03.2016. Because the objection was belated, the Tribunal rightly found the assessment time-barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
