Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
