HomeDirect TaxSupreme Court Split on Whether DRP Route Can Extend Assessment Deadlines

Supreme Court Split on Whether DRP Route Can Extend Assessment Deadlines

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Supreme Court has delivered a split verdict in the Shelf Drilling case concerning the interplay between Sections 144C and 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in determining the limitation period for completing assessments.

While the detailed order is awaited, the ruling is expected to have a far-reaching impact, particularly for assessees who opted for the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) route in earlier assessment years.

The central question before the Court was whether, in cases routed through the DRP under Section 144C, the final assessment order must still be completed within the overarching time limit prescribed under Section 153 — generally 12 months from the end of the financial year in which the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remand order was received — or whether the additional time frames embedded in Section 144C for DRP proceedings and for the Assessing Officer’s final order function independently, thereby extending the permissible period.

Tax professionals and corporates are closely watching for the detailed reasoning, as the verdict could shape future assessment timelines and the validity of orders passed under extended schedules.

Read More: CBDT Amends Income-tax Rules to Include Foreign Portfolio Investors in IFSC Transactions

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Cadre Change Not Same as Transfer: Supreme Court Directs Reallocation to Uttarakhand, Slams State Apathy After 26-Year Delay

The Supreme Court has clarified that “cadre change” is fundamentally distinct from “transfer”, and...

Conviction Can Rest on Sole Injured Eyewitness if Testimony is of ‘Sterling Quality’: Supreme Court Upholds Life Imprisonment

The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of a father-son duo...

ITAT Quashes Reassessment for AY 2017–18 Over Invalid Approval U/s 151(ii), Deletes Rs. 10.09 Lakh Addition

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench, has quashed reassessment proceedings initiated against...

More like this

Cadre Change Not Same as Transfer: Supreme Court Directs Reallocation to Uttarakhand, Slams State Apathy After 26-Year Delay

The Supreme Court has clarified that “cadre change” is fundamentally distinct from “transfer”, and...

Conviction Can Rest on Sole Injured Eyewitness if Testimony is of ‘Sterling Quality’: Supreme Court Upholds Life Imprisonment

The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of a father-son duo...