https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341694 The court quashed the impugned notice dated 15.03.2017, finding that the reasons provided by the Assessing Officer for curtailing the period for payment of tax demand did not meet the legal standards set in Sony India Ltd. The court emphasized that the discretion under Section 220(1) should be exercised judiciously and only for valid reasons. The court concluded that the AO's reasons were not proper and amounted to an abuse of power, leading to the decision in favor of the petitioner and highlighting the importance of fair and reasoned decision-making in tax matters. en-us Tue, 21 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Jun 2017 10:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341694 The court quashed the impugned notice dated 15.03.2017, finding that the reasons provided by the Assessing Officer for curtailing the period for payment of tax demand did not meet the legal standards set in Sony India Ltd. The court emphasized that the discretion under Section 220(1) should be exercised judiciously and only for valid reasons. The court concluded that the AO's reasons were not proper and amounted to an abuse of power, leading to the decision in favor of the petitioner and highlighting the importance of fair and reasoned decision-making in tax matters. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 21 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341694