Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
The dominant issue was whether, after DRP directions, the AO could complete proceedings to give effect to those directions beyond the mandatory time limit under s.144C(13), on the plea that remand proceedings are exempt from the statutory timeline. The court held that s.144C(13) imposes a binding and strict time frame, and where the statute prescribes a manner and timeline, it must be complied with; permitting completion beyond limitation would negate the mandatory provision. Consequently, the pending proceedings to implement the transfer pricing addition were held time-barred, the adjustment was treated as non est, and the total income for AY 2012-13 was directed to be recomputed excluding it - HC
The dominant issue was whether, after DRP directions, the AO could complete proceedings to give effect to those directions beyond the mandatory time limit under s.144C(13), on the plea that remand proceedings are exempt from the statutory timeline. The court held that s.144C(13) imposes a binding and strict time frame, and where the statute prescribes a manner and timeline, it must be complied with; permitting completion beyond limitation would negate the mandatory provision. Consequently, the pending proceedings to implement the transfer pricing addition were held time-barred, the adjustment was treated as non est, and the total income for AY 2012-13 was directed to be recomputed excluding it - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
