https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342518 The court quashed the impugned orders rejecting the petitioner's stay application for tax demand, finding the rejection solely based on a misinterpretation of the modified instructions. It clarified that there is no requirement for a pre-deposit of 15% of the disputed demand before considering the application on merits. The court emphasized procedural requirements for the Assessing Officer (AO) in dealing with stay applications, stating that deviations from the 15% requirement must be referred to the administrative Principal CIT/CIT for decision. The matter was remanded to the AO for reconsideration within six weeks, ruling in favor of the petitioner without awarding costs. en-us Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 May 2017 08:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342518 The court quashed the impugned orders rejecting the petitioner's stay application for tax demand, finding the rejection solely based on a misinterpretation of the modified instructions. It clarified that there is no requirement for a pre-deposit of 15% of the disputed demand before considering the application on merits. The court emphasized procedural requirements for the Assessing Officer (AO) in dealing with stay applications, stating that deviations from the 15% requirement must be referred to the administrative Principal CIT/CIT for decision. The matter was remanded to the AO for reconsideration within six weeks, ruling in favor of the petitioner without awarding costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342518