Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
The Delhi High Court addressed a case involving a stay of demand where the petitioner was required to deposit 20% of the outstanding demand as a pre-condition for protection. The court found that the assessing officer (AO) did not consider the prima facie merits of the challenge raised by the petitioner or address the issue of undue hardship. Referring to a previous case, the court emphasized the importance of examining the AO's power under Section 220(6) of the Act and criticized the AO's stance that the application for stay could not be entertained without the pre-deposit. The court concluded that the petition should be remitted to the AO for a fresh consideration of the stay application.
The Delhi High Court addressed a case involving a stay of demand where the petitioner was required to deposit 20% of the outstanding demand as a pre-condition for protection. The court found that the assessing officer (AO) did not consider the prima facie merits of the challenge raised by the petitioner or address the issue of undue hardship. Referring to a previous case, the court emphasized the importance of examining the AO's power under Section 220(6) of the Act and criticized the AO's stance that the application for stay could not be entertained without the pre-deposit. The court concluded that the petition should be remitted to the AO for a fresh consideration of the stay application.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
