AMP expenditure for own business is not an international transaction without an associated-enterprise arrangement, eliminating transfer pricing adjust...
Customs valuation must use comparable contemporary imports, while confiscation fines and penalties require proportionate recalculation on reassessed v...
Depositor-protection proceedings prevail over corporate insolvency, while liquidators may recover chit receivables using copies of seized company reco...
Intermediary service classification fails where overseas admission facilitation is supplied independently, preserving export treatment and small-provi...
Satellite transponder bandwidth is telecommunication, not Business Support Service; foreign non-telegraph providers triggered no service tax liability...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
