https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428291 The dominant issue was whether the AO could invoke s.144C where there was no variation from the returned income, the AO having merely recharacterized receipts offered as royalty as business income. Interpreting s.144C, the Tribunal held that absence of any income variation negated draft-order jurisdiction; the AO's assumption of jurisdiction was erroneous, rendering the final assessment orders time-barred and void ab initio, and they were quashed. On characterization of consideration for use of brand under the India-UK DTAA, the Tribunal admitted a supplementary licence agreement as additional evidence since it went to the root of the transaction, and remitted the matter to the AO for fresh determination after due opportunity, allowing the appeals for statistical purposes. en-us Tue, 20 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Dec 2025 15:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428291 The dominant issue was whether the AO could invoke s.144C where there was no variation from the returned income, the AO having merely recharacterized receipts offered as royalty as business income. Interpreting s.144C, the Tribunal held that absence of any income variation negated draft-order jurisdiction; the AO's assumption of jurisdiction was erroneous, rendering the final assessment orders time-barred and void ab initio, and they were quashed. On characterization of consideration for use of brand under the India-UK DTAA, the Tribunal admitted a supplementary licence agreement as additional evidence since it went to the root of the transaction, and remitted the matter to the AO for fresh determination after due opportunity, allowing the appeals for statistical purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 20 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428291