Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
The ITAT held that an assessee's appeal is maintainable even if the alternative remedy u/s 264 has been availed. Relying on the Madras High Court's decision in CIT vs. D. Lakshminarayanapathi, it ruled that provisions dealing with appellate jurisdiction do not bar an appellant from invoking appellate jurisdiction before CIT(A), despite having invoked revisional jurisdiction u/s 264. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order holding the assessee's appeal as not maintainable was set aside, and he was directed to re-decide the appeal on merits as per law. The assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The ITAT held that an assessee's appeal is maintainable even if the alternative remedy u/s 264 has been availed. Relying on the Madras High Court's decision in CIT vs. D. Lakshminarayanapathi, it ruled that provisions dealing with appellate jurisdiction do not bar an appellant from invoking appellate jurisdiction before CIT(A), despite having invoked revisional jurisdiction u/s 264. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order holding the assessee's appeal as not maintainable was set aside, and he was directed to re-decide the appeal on merits as per law. The assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
