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...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
661 to 680 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The assessing officer (AO) is empowered u/s 275(1A) to revise the penalty order by giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee within six months from the receipt of an appellate or revision order modifying the assessment. In the event the order passed by the Tribunal is modified by the High Court, the AO is required to give effect to the High Court's judgment by invoking Section 275(1A) and revise the penalty order accordingly. The CIT(A) correctly followed the Coordinate Bench decision and deleted the proportionate penalty levied by the AO to the extent of additions not confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. The Revenue failed to demonstrate any stay order issued by the High Court against the Tribunal's order. Hence, the CIT(A)'s order confirming the penalty to the extent of additions confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal is upheld, and the Revenue's ground is dismissed.
The assessing officer (AO) is empowered u/s 275(1A) to revise the penalty order by giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee within six months from the receipt of an appellate or revision order modifying the assessment. In the event the order passed by the Tribunal is modified by the High Court, the AO is required to give effect to the High Court's judgment by invoking Section 275(1A) and revise the penalty order accordingly. The CIT(A) correctly followed the Coordinate Bench decision and deleted the proportionate penalty levied by the AO to the extent of additions not confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. The Revenue failed to demonstrate any stay order issued by the High Court against the Tribunal's order. Hence, the CIT(A)'s order confirming the penalty to the extent of additions confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal is upheld, and the Revenue's ground is dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
