Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
A High Court held that a Dispute Resolution Panel direction was binding and could not be ignored by the Assessing Officer. Because no departmental appeal had been filed on the earlier years' issue, the addition made under section 40(a)(i) was contrary to the DRP's clear mandate and could not be sustained. The Court therefore exercised writ jurisdiction to quash the demand, including interest, relatable to that addition, despite the availability of an alternate appellate remedy. The remaining transfer pricing adjustment was left open to challenge in the ordinary appeal, with protection against limitation if filed within the time granted.
A High Court held that a Dispute Resolution Panel direction was binding and could not be ignored by the Assessing Officer. Because no departmental appeal had been filed on the earlier years' issue, the addition made under section 40(a)(i) was contrary to the DRP's clear mandate and could not be sustained. The Court therefore exercised writ jurisdiction to quash the demand, including interest, relatable to that addition, despite the availability of an alternate appellate remedy. The remaining transfer pricing adjustment was left open to challenge in the ordinary appeal, with protection against limitation if filed within the time granted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
