Topic
ITAT Jaipur rules that failure to issue draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) for non-resident assessee renders assessment void ab initio. Key procedural compliance takeaways.
ITAT Bangalore sets aside an assessment order for failing to adhere to Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directions under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act. The ruling reinforces that final assessments must strictly conform to DRP mandates, impacting transfer pricing adjustments and statutory compliance for taxpayers.
The ITAT Bangalore has ruled that an Assessing Officer is legally bound to implement Dispute Resolution Panel directions under Section 144C(13) regardless of whether the Transfer Pricing Officer has finalized their order. This clarifies that statutory compliance with DRP mandates cannot be delayed or negated due to procedural lags in transfer pricing assessments, reinforcing taxpayer rights and administrative accountability in complex tax disputes.
ITAT Bangalore reaffirms judicial discipline in tax proceedings by holding that under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, only the Assessing Officer (AO) can be directed to reconsider matters. Directions to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) or Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) are ultra vires, reinforcing the statutory hierarchy in transfer pricing disputes.
ITAT Bangalore sets aside a ₹32.69 crore disallowance under Section 40(a) for failure to specify the exact TDS provision violated. The ruling mandates procedural clarity, requiring tax authorities to identify the precise legal basis for disallowance before penalizing assessees.