https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374200 The Court set aside the impugned order that required a 20% deposit for considering a stay of demand, directing the Assessing Officer to reevaluate the application without imposing such conditions. The Court emphasized the need for tax officials to exercise discretion in line with CBDT instructions and circulars, ensuring a fair process for taxpayers. The respondents were instructed not to take coercive action during the reevaluation period, highlighting the importance of adherence to prescribed guidelines in considering applications for stay of demand. en-us Tue, 22 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Jan 2019 08:14:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374200 The Court set aside the impugned order that required a 20% deposit for considering a stay of demand, directing the Assessing Officer to reevaluate the application without imposing such conditions. The Court emphasized the need for tax officials to exercise discretion in line with CBDT instructions and circulars, ensuring a fair process for taxpayers. The respondents were instructed not to take coercive action during the reevaluation period, highlighting the importance of adherence to prescribed guidelines in considering applications for stay of demand. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 22 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374200