https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93168 The HC held that the petitioner qualified as an "eligible assessee" under s.144C(15)(b)(i) because the TPO recommended an upward variation to the arm's-length price, and that the AO's withholding of a draft assessment order under s.144C(1) was a jurisdictional defect. The court ruled that service of the draft is mandatory, as it enables the assessee either to file objections before the DRP under s.144C(2) or to seek AO finalization and appeal to the CIT(A). By promulgating a final assessment without first serving the draft, the AO violated s.144C; the assessment was therefore quashed and set aside, with the matter remitted for fresh proceedings. en-us Wed, 08 Oct 2025 08:45:19 +0530 Wed, 08 Oct 2025 08:45:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93168 The HC held that the petitioner qualified as an "eligible assessee" under s.144C(15)(b)(i) because the TPO recommended an upward variation to the arm's-length price, and that the AO's withholding of a draft assessment order under s.144C(1) was a jurisdictional defect. The court ruled that service of the draft is mandatory, as it enables the assessee either to file objections before the DRP under s.144C(2) or to seek AO finalization and appeal to the CIT(A). By promulgating a final assessment without first serving the draft, the AO violated s.144C; the assessment was therefore quashed and set aside, with the matter remitted for fresh proceedings. Highlights Income Tax Wed, 08 Oct 2025 08:45:19 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93168