https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752591 Under section 144C, the Assessing Officer was bound to complete the final assessment in strict conformity with the Dispute Resolution Panel's directions. Because the final order merely repeated the draft reasoning and failed to address the Panel's specific objections on the absence of material showing equipment royalty or any right to use IT infrastructure, hardware or software, the order did not comply with the statutory mandate. The non-implementation of binding directions was a jurisdictional defect, so the final assessment order was invalid, void ab initio, and quashed. en-us Fri, 10 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 May 2024 06:54:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752591 Under section 144C, the Assessing Officer was bound to complete the final assessment in strict conformity with the Dispute Resolution Panel's directions. Because the final order merely repeated the draft reasoning and failed to address the Panel's specific objections on the absence of material showing equipment royalty or any right to use IT infrastructure, hardware or software, the order did not comply with the statutory mandate. The non-implementation of binding directions was a jurisdictional defect, so the final assessment order was invalid, void ab initio, and quashed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 10 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752591