Income Tax : Budget 2026 introduces sweeping retrospective amendments affecting limitation, reassessment jurisdiction, DIN validity, and TPO ti...
Income Tax : Courts are divided on whether the DRP-specific deadline under Section 144C(13) overrides the general assessment time bar in Sectio...
Income Tax : Taxpayers face challenges when assessment orders don’t reflect DRP directions. Misalignments lead to disputes, rectification iss...
Income Tax : The legal community awaits the Supreme Court decision on the Roca Bathroom case, addressing timelines for transfer pricing assessm...
Income Tax : Discover how Section 44C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, governs the deduction of head office expenses for non-resident businesses in...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT allows Sanco Holding, a Norwegian company, to compute income from bareboat charter of seismic vessels under Article 21(...
Income Tax : The ITAT observed that mere remote access to customer-owned systems does not satisfy the disposal and permanence tests required fo...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi ruled that reimbursement of software costs to foreign AEs on a cost-to-cost basis could not be treated as a profit-...
Income Tax : Tribunal found the DRP’s order cryptic and lacking proper analysis on similarity of business activities between the assessee and...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that margins agreed under a Bilateral Advance Pricing Agreement may be used for non-covered AEs when transactio...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT directed exclusion of a comparable company engaged in video conferencing solutions after noting that the DRP had alread...
The Tribunal held that section 144C cannot be invoked where the TPO proposes no income variation. As the assessee was not an eligible assessee, the assessment was quashed as without jurisdiction.
The issue was whether final assessment orders passed after DRP directions were barred by limitation under section 144C read with section 153. The Tribunal held that such orders passed beyond the statutory time limit are without jurisdiction and must be quashed.
The Tribunal held that a final assessment passed without giving effect to binding DRP directions violates section 144C. Such an order is void ab initio and cannot be sustained once the statutory time limit has expired.
The High Court set aside reassessment orders holding that non-issuance of a mandatory draft assessment order under Section 144C invalidated the proceedings. It ruled that Section 263 remand does not override statutory safeguards.
ITAT Delhi held that Final Assessment Order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) passed beyond time limit prescribed under section 153 of the Income Tax Act is barred by limitation. Accordingly, Final Assessment Order is liable to be quashed.
The issue was whether final assessment orders passed under the DRP route exceeded statutory time limits. The tribunal held that assessments beyond Section 144C read with Section 153 are void for limitation.
The Tribunal held that when an eligible assessee fails to file objections before the DRP within time, a direct appeal to the Tribunal is barred. Non-compliance with section 144C renders the appeal non-maintainable.
The Tribunal ruled that Sections 144C and 153 must be read harmoniously and that DRP proceedings do not extend statutory limitation. Any final order issued beyond the prescribed time is void ab initio and liable to be quashed.
Coca Cola India Inc. Vs DDIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT Delhi held that final assessment order passed beyond period of limitation prescribed under section 144C(13) read with section 153 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed and hence set aside. Facts: The present adjudication involves a batch of six appeals pertaining to the same […]
The issue was whether a final assessment could stand when objections were filed before the DRP but not considered by the AO. The Court ruled that such an order violates the scheme of section 144C and must be set aside.
