https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465578 In a quantum appeal under s.254 of the Income-tax Act, the HC held that the Tribunal has implied incidental and ancillary powers to stay parallel penalty proceedings under s.271(1)(c) when such restraint is necessary to preserve the efficacy of the appellate remedy, even though no express stay power is conferred; accordingly, the Tribunal's jurisdiction to grant the stay was affirmed. On the facts, since the penalty proceedings were founded on the very enhancement/addition under challenge and the quantum result would determine the basis and measure of "tax sought to be evaded," continuation risked prejudice through parallel proceedings, and s.275(1)(a) provided adequate time post-appeal to complete penalty action; hence the stay was upheld and the Tribunal was directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously within a fixed timeframe. en-us Thu, 18 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Dec 2025 18:31:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465578 In a quantum appeal under s.254 of the Income-tax Act, the HC held that the Tribunal has implied incidental and ancillary powers to stay parallel penalty proceedings under s.271(1)(c) when such restraint is necessary to preserve the efficacy of the appellate remedy, even though no express stay power is conferred; accordingly, the Tribunal's jurisdiction to grant the stay was affirmed. On the facts, since the penalty proceedings were founded on the very enhancement/addition under challenge and the quantum result would determine the basis and measure of "tax sought to be evaded," continuation risked prejudice through parallel proceedings, and s.275(1)(a) provided adequate time post-appeal to complete penalty action; hence the stay was upheld and the Tribunal was directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously within a fixed timeframe. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 18 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465578