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...
ITAT affirms that the AO's invocation of s.153C was invalid because no individualized recorded satisfaction was made for each assessee and the purported satisfaction failed to specify assessment year(s), being a consolidated recording for 15 companies without AY-specific analysis of seized material; the tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision accordingly. The assessee qualifies as an "eligible assessee" under s.144C(15)(b), thereby triggering the mandatory requirement under s.144C(1) to issue a draft assessment order, which the AO omitted. Consequently, the final assessment orders are vitiated for non-compliance with the statutory mandate to issue draft assessment orders and for improper application of s.153C.
ITAT affirms that the AO's invocation of s.153C was invalid because no individualized recorded satisfaction was made for each assessee and the purported satisfaction failed to specify assessment year(s), being a consolidated recording for 15 companies without AY-specific analysis of seized material; the tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision accordingly. The assessee qualifies as an "eligible assessee" under s.144C(15)(b), thereby triggering the mandatory requirement under s.144C(1) to issue a draft assessment order, which the AO omitted. Consequently, the final assessment orders are vitiated for non-compliance with the statutory mandate to issue draft assessment orders and for improper application of s.153C.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.