#Section 144C

ITAT Mumbai rules that failure to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) during reassessment proceedings renders the entire assessment void ab initio. The tribunal held that issuing a demand notice alongside a draft assessment order under Section 144C without adhering to procedural safeguards constitutes a jurisdictional error, impacting all taxpayers undergoing reassessment.

ITAT Bangalore rules that the one-month limitation under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act begins from the date DRP directions are uploaded to the ITBA portal, not from the Assessing Officer's actual receipt. The tribunal quashed the assessment order for being time-barred, reinforcing procedural compliance in faceless assessments.

ITAT Delhi rules that the absence of a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act vitiates the final assessment, even in remand proceedings. The decision reinforces strict procedural compliance for transfer pricing cases, impacting tax authorities and assessees alike.

Uttarakhand High Court quashes a final tax assessment order for failure to issue a mandatory draft assessment under Section 144(C) of the Income Tax Act. The ruling reinforces that eligible assessees must be given an opportunity to respond before a final order is passed, ensuring procedural fairness in tax assessments.

ITAT Delhi sets aside ₹107 crore transfer pricing adjustment, ruling that Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directions under Section 144C are binding on Assessing Officers. The tribunal also held that Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) qualify as capital receipts, impacting tax liability for energy sector enterprises.

ITAT Delhi holds that final assessment orders beyond 33-month statutory limit under Section 153 read with Section 144C are void, reinforcing strict compliance with tax timelines.