Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
In a stay of demand matter, the HC held that the impugned order was defective because the authority fixed the amount payable and instalment schedule without discernible application of mind or a reasoned consideration of relevant factors. Referring to the CBDT stay guidelines, the Court required the stay application to be decided through a speaking order after hearing the taxpayer and considering the Supreme Court decision and the Circular. The stay order was set aside, the matter was remitted for fresh decision on merits, and recovery pursuant to the assessment order was kept in abeyance until reconsideration.
In a stay of demand matter, the HC held that the impugned order was defective because the authority fixed the amount payable and instalment schedule without discernible application of mind or a reasoned consideration of relevant factors. Referring to the CBDT stay guidelines, the Court required the stay application to be decided through a speaking order after hearing the taxpayer and considering the Supreme Court decision and the Circular. The stay order was set aside, the matter was remitted for fresh decision on merits, and recovery pursuant to the assessment order was kept in abeyance until reconsideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
