<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (7) TMI 691 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794805</link>
    <description>The final assessment order under the DRP mechanism was quashed because the Assessing Officer failed to incorporate the DRP directions and the order giving effect passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer before issuing the final order. That omission was treated as contrary to the mandatory procedure under section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the defect was held to match the earlier coordinate bench ruling relied upon. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2026 08:46:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=911186" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 691 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794805</link>
      <description>The final assessment order under the DRP mechanism was quashed because the Assessing Officer failed to incorporate the DRP directions and the order giving effect passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer before issuing the final order. That omission was treated as contrary to the mandatory procedure under section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the defect was held to match the earlier coordinate bench ruling relied upon. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794805</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>