Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Limited scope of processing under section 143(1): enhancement without show cause is unsustainable; remand for residency, taxation and TDS verification...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
