https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359173 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the pre-deposit requirement of 20% for considering a stay application was not legally justified. The court emphasized that the assessing officer must assess the stay application on its merits first, following guidelines set by the Bombay High Court. The court also rejected the argument of an alternative remedy, stating that no stay had been granted, thus no review provision applied. It reiterated the binding nature of CBDT circulars and directed a reconsideration of the stay application without the pre-deposit condition, with a reasoned decision to be provided within two weeks. en-us Tue, 10 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Nov 2019 16:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359173 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the pre-deposit requirement of 20% for considering a stay application was not legally justified. The court emphasized that the assessing officer must assess the stay application on its merits first, following guidelines set by the Bombay High Court. The court also rejected the argument of an alternative remedy, stating that no stay had been granted, thus no review provision applied. It reiterated the binding nature of CBDT circulars and directed a reconsideration of the stay application without the pre-deposit condition, with a reasoned decision to be provided within two weeks. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 10 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359173