https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450281 HC held that under s.144C(13) the AO has no discretion and must frame the assessment strictly in conformity with DRP directions within the prescribed limitation period, without any further hearing. Once the DRP's directions were uploaded on the ITBA portal, valid service stood effected and limitation commenced from that date under the faceless assessment regime. The TPO's jurisdiction ended upon issuance of the order under s.92CA(4), and there was no authority to resume proceedings after DRP directions. Since the AO failed to complete the assessment by 31.07.2022, the assessment order and consequential penalty proceedings were quashed. Writ petition was allowed in favour of the assessee. en-us Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Dec 2025 14:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450281 HC held that under s.144C(13) the AO has no discretion and must frame the assessment strictly in conformity with DRP directions within the prescribed limitation period, without any further hearing. Once the DRP's directions were uploaded on the ITBA portal, valid service stood effected and limitation commenced from that date under the faceless assessment regime. The TPO's jurisdiction ended upon issuance of the order under s.92CA(4), and there was no authority to resume proceedings after DRP directions. Since the AO failed to complete the assessment by 31.07.2022, the assessment order and consequential penalty proceedings were quashed. Writ petition was allowed in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450281