Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
The dominant issue was whether recovery of outstanding tax demand should be stayed under s. 220(6) while the assessee's stay application remained pending. The court held that no mandatory stay could be directed because the assessee's appeal before the ITAT had not yet been restored and the assessee had itself proposed payment of the demand in installments, undermining the basis for compelling a stay; accordingly, stay was refused. The Revenue was directed to decide the assessee's pending stay application under s. 156 expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, without treating the order as any mandate to grant stay. - HC
The dominant issue was whether recovery of outstanding tax demand should be stayed under s. 220(6) while the assessee's stay application remained pending. The court held that no mandatory stay could be directed because the assessee's appeal before the ITAT had not yet been restored and the assessee had itself proposed payment of the demand in installments, undermining the basis for compelling a stay; accordingly, stay was refused. The Revenue was directed to decide the assessee's pending stay application under s. 156 expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, without treating the order as any mandate to grant stay. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
