Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The HC held that the petitioner qualified as an "eligible assessee" under s.144C(15)(b)(i) because the TPO recommended an upward variation to the arm's-length price, and that the AO's withholding of a draft assessment order under s.144C(1) was a jurisdictional defect. The court ruled that service of the draft is mandatory, as it enables the assessee either to file objections before the DRP under s.144C(2) or to seek AO finalization and appeal to the CIT(A). By promulgating a final assessment without first serving the draft, the AO violated s.144C; the assessment was therefore quashed and set aside, with the matter remitted for fresh proceedings.
The HC held that the petitioner qualified as an "eligible assessee" under s.144C(15)(b)(i) because the TPO recommended an upward variation to the arm's-length price, and that the AO's withholding of a draft assessment order under s.144C(1) was a jurisdictional defect. The court ruled that service of the draft is mandatory, as it enables the assessee either to file objections before the DRP under s.144C(2) or to seek AO finalization and appeal to the CIT(A). By promulgating a final assessment without first serving the draft, the AO violated s.144C; the assessment was therefore quashed and set aside, with the matter remitted for fresh proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.