Imported cement concessional duty exemption under Notification 4/2006 challenged over RSP misdeclaration; demand, interest and s.114A penalty set asid...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7301 to 7320 of 96332 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The dominant issue was whether the Assessing Officer could pass an order giving effect to DRP directions after expiry of the one-month period mandated by section 144C(13). The court held that section 144C(13) imposes a strict, mandatory timeline, and statutory requirements must be complied with in the prescribed manner; treating the time limit as directory would negate the provision's mandatory character. Since the one-month period had already lapsed, the pending proceedings to give effect to the DRP directions, including the transfer pricing addition, were barred by limitation and could not be continued under section 144C(13). - HC
The dominant issue was whether the Assessing Officer could pass an order giving effect to DRP directions after expiry of the one-month period mandated by section 144C(13). The court held that section 144C(13) imposes a strict, mandatory timeline, and statutory requirements must be complied with in the prescribed manner; treating the time limit as directory would negate the provision's mandatory character. Since the one-month period had already lapsed, the pending proceedings to give effect to the DRP directions, including the transfer pricing addition, were barred by limitation and could not be continued under section 144C(13). - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
