What the courts have decided on section 144C(13), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
Benteler Automotive India Pvt Ltd v Union of India
High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
The DRP issued its directions years ago and the Assessing Officer has still not passed a final assessment order. Is the assessment now dead, or can he pass one whenever he likes?
It is dead. Section 144C(13) requires the Assessing Officer, on receipt of the DRP's directions under s.144C(5), to complete the assessment in conformity with them within one month from the end of the month in which the directions are received, and he need not give any further hearing. Where that month passed — here even after the extension of the outer date under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020 — and no order was passed, the Bombay High Court held the assessment barred by limitation and quashed the pending proceedings on the assessee's writ petition.
-
Manvendu Bharadwaj v DCIT (International Taxation)
ITATHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
My client is abroad and has a reassessment for FY 2017-18 saying he sold bitcoin on an Indian exchange. If he does not engage, what happens?
This is what happens. The Delhi Bench, hearing and pronouncing on the same day with nobody appearing for the assessee, dismissed the appeal and left standing an addition of Rs 49,12,362 as unexplained short-term capital gain on bitcoin for AY 2018-19. It said only that the income had been correctly assessed under s.147 read with s.144C(13) and that, in the absence of any assistance from the assessee, the Assessing Officer's order was just and proper. Read this entry for the fact pattern and the warning, not for any proposition of law: the Tribunal decided nothing about the head of income.
-
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v DCIT
ITATCuts both waysValidity unconfirmed
Every issue in my Tribunal appeal is covered in my favour. Can the Tribunal grant an unconditional stay without my paying 20%?
Not an unconditional one. After the Finance Act 2020 amended the first proviso to s.254(2A), the Tribunal may grant stay only on the condition that the assessee deposits not less than twenty per cent of the tax, interest, fee, penalty or other sum payable, or furnishes security of equal amount. But the deposit is not a condition precedent: the assessee may instead furnish security, and what constitutes reasonable security is for the Tribunal to decide. Stay was granted on security of Rs.35 crores against a demand of about Rs.172.48 crores.
Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.