<?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 679 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794793</link>
    <description>A final assessment order under section 144C was invalid because the Assessing Officer did not conform to the Dispute Resolution Panel&#039;s binding directions. Section 144C(10) makes those directions binding, and section 144C(13) requires the final order to be passed in conformity with them. The non-compliance was treated as a clear statutory violation, so the order could not be sustained and was quashed. The transfer pricing grounds were left open as academic.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 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=911198" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 679 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794793</link>
      <description>A final assessment order under section 144C was invalid because the Assessing Officer did not conform to the Dispute Resolution Panel&#039;s binding directions. Section 144C(10) makes those directions binding, and section 144C(13) requires the final order to be passed in conformity with them. The non-compliance was treated as a clear statutory violation, so the order could not be sustained and was quashed. The transfer pricing grounds were left open as academic.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794793</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>