ESOP expenditure allowed as FMV difference; long-term capital gain issue sent back for collector rate determination; deferred income additions disallo...
Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed as regulator failed to prove nexus or manipulative scheme; sale genuine - s.12A(a)-(c), Regs 3(a)-(d),4(1),4(2)...
Appellant's ring-back tone service held OIDAR, taxable domestically for 01.07.2012-31.07.2016; liability confirmed, penalties vacated, remanded for re...
The HC granted ad-interim relief to the Petitioner, holding that under the pre-amendment proviso of s.275(1)(a) of the IT Act an order imposing penalty under Chapter XXI ought not be passed while an appeal against the assessment is pending before the Appellate Tribunal; accordingly the impugned penalty order is set aside and remitted to the AO with a direction that penalty proceedings be kept in abeyance until the ITAT disposes the pending appeal. The court found a strong prima facie case and balance of convenience in the Petitioner's favour, noting potential recovery of c. Rs.101 crore, and directed the Revenue to file any affidavit-in-reply by 12 Nov 2025.
The HC granted ad-interim relief to the Petitioner, holding that under the pre-amendment proviso of s.275(1)(a) of the IT Act an order imposing penalty under Chapter XXI ought not be passed while an appeal against the assessment is pending before the Appellate Tribunal; accordingly the impugned penalty order is set aside and remitted to the AO with a direction that penalty proceedings be kept in abeyance until the ITAT disposes the pending appeal. The court found a strong prima facie case and balance of convenience in the Petitioner's favour, noting potential recovery of c. Rs.101 crore, and directed the Revenue to file any affidavit-in-reply by 12 Nov 2025.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
