https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95608 The dominant issue was whether the Assessing Officer could pass an order giving effect to DRP directions after expiry of the one-month period mandated by section 144C(13). The court held that section 144C(13) imposes a strict, mandatory timeline, and statutory requirements must be complied with in the prescribed manner; treating the time limit as directory would negate the provision's mandatory character. Since the one-month period had already lapsed, the pending proceedings to give effect to the DRP directions, including the transfer pricing addition, were barred by limitation and could not be continued under section 144C(13). - HC en-us Thu, 01 Jan 2026 08:17:53 +0530 Thu, 01 Jan 2026 08:17:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95608 The dominant issue was whether the Assessing Officer could pass an order giving effect to DRP directions after expiry of the one-month period mandated by section 144C(13). The court held that section 144C(13) imposes a strict, mandatory timeline, and statutory requirements must be complied with in the prescribed manner; treating the time limit as directory would negate the provision's mandatory character. Since the one-month period had already lapsed, the pending proceedings to give effect to the DRP directions, including the transfer pricing addition, were barred by limitation and could not be continued under section 144C(13). - HC Highlights Income Tax Thu, 01 Jan 2026 08:17:53 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95608