Reassessment under s.148A held valid; s.69 additions totaling Rs.7,00,000 deleted after acceptable contemporaneous explanations for property investmen...
Adjudication set aside; Rule 9 valuation based on internet engineer report quashed for Rule 3(4) non-compliance; Section 138B cross-examination requir...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
