Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
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 4817 
Join Channel 
