Infrastructure-development deduction remains available to EPC contractors when substantive statutory conditions outweigh contractor labels in agreemen...
Explained Investment Sources: documented gifts and traceable salary savings supported deletion of additions for property and mutual-fund SIP investmen...
Internal comparable pricing supports arm's-length interest on compulsorily convertible debentures, preventing their recharacterisation as equity for t...
Nominee director protection shields independent financial-institution appointees from criminal liability where they lack involvement in deposit defaul...
Assessment limitation following remand of a transfer-pricing...
Limitation after transfer-pricing remand: fresh TPO reference did not extend the assessment deadline, rendering the consequential assessment time-barred.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Assessment limitation following remand of a transfer-pricing issue is governed by section 153(3) where the remand is to the Assessing Officer under Rule 28 and requires verification and a hearing. A fresh reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer, absent fresh satisfaction under section 92CA(1), does not attract section 153(4) or extend the completion period; the consequential assessment was therefore quashed as time-barred. Although quoting a DIN in Dispute Resolution Panel directions is mandatory, omission from the directions did not invalidate them where a separate authenticated intimation identified the directions and carried the DIN. The DIN objection was rejected.
Assessment limitation following remand of a transfer-pricing issue is governed by section 153(3) where the remand is to the Assessing Officer under Rule 28 and requires verification and a hearing. A fresh reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer, absent fresh satisfaction under section 92CA(1), does not attract section 153(4) or extend the completion period; the consequential assessment was therefore quashed as time-barred. Although quoting a DIN in Dispute Resolution Panel directions is mandatory, omission from the directions did not invalidate them where a separate authenticated intimation identified the directions and carried the DIN. The DIN objection was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
