{"id":43294,"date":"2024-06-07T20:03:47","date_gmt":"2024-06-07T14:33:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/oxbow-energy-solutions-llc-v-dcit-it-2023-199-itd-770-delhi-trib\/"},"modified":"2024-06-07T20:03:47","modified_gmt":"2024-06-07T14:33:47","slug":"oxbow-energy-solutions-llc-v-dcit-it-2023-199-itd-770-delhi-trib","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/oxbow-energy-solutions-llc-v-dcit-it-2023-199-itd-770-delhi-trib\/","title":{"rendered":"Oxbow Energy Solutions LLC. v. DCIT, IT (2023) 199 ITD 770 (Delhi) (Trib.)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Assessee sold equity shares of certain Indian companies through BSE\u00a0 and amount was remitted outside India.\u00a0 Assessing Officer added back\u00a0 by invoking provisions of section 69A.\u00a0 Before DRP, assessee submitted that share transaction of which\u00a0 was Security Transaction Tax (STT) paid, hence, resultant long-term capital gain was exempt under section 10(38) and that except this transaction, assessee had neither made any other share transaction nor made any other remittances. DRP, being convinced that assessee had actually made a single remittance deleted addition made by Assessing Officer. While passing final assessment order in pursuance to directions of DRP, Assessing Officer, added\u00a0 accepted in draft assessment order. On appeal the Tribunal held that\u00a0 where clear mandate given to Assessing Officer by DRP was to restrict himself to delete addition made in draft assessment order, Assessing Officer had travelled beyond direction given by DRP,\u00a0 therefore, assessment order having been passed in clear violation of directions of DRP was a nullity in eyes of law and hence was to be quashed. (AY. 2012-13)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Unexplained money-Draft assessment order-Order passed in violation of directions of DRP-Nullity and bad in law.[S.69A] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-43294","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-bgi","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43294","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=43294"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43294\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":43295,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43294\/revisions\/43295"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43294"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43294"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43294"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}