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 filing an adjournment application in response to a notice issued under section 142(1) does not constitute non-compliance under section 272A(1)(d). The assessee had replied to the notice seeking additional time, and there was no evidence that this request was rejected by a speaking order from the AO. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty without addressing the fact that the adjournment request was unconsidered. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee made a valid compliance by responding to the notice, negating any willful avoidance. The penalty imposed under section 272A(1)(d) was therefore quashed, and the appeal was allowed.
The ITAT held that filing an adjournment application in response to a notice issued under section 142(1) does not constitute non-compliance under section 272A(1)(d). The assessee had replied to the notice seeking additional time, and there was no evidence that this request was rejected by a speaking order from the AO. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty without addressing the fact that the adjournment request was unconsidered. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee made a valid compliance by responding to the notice, negating any willful avoidance. The penalty imposed under section 272A(1)(d) was therefore quashed, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
