https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375285 The Court rejected the authorities' stance on dismissing revision petitions for lack of progress, emphasizing delays not caused by the Petitioner. For appeals in various Assessment Years, the Court declined to impose strict timeframes on the Appellate Commissioner due to case complexity. Disagreeing with the Respondent's deposit mandate, the Court directed a 5% deposit for specific years within four weeks, ensuring a stay on coercive recovery pending appeal. The decision aimed to balance financial obligations while expediting appeal resolution within three months, promoting fair tax dispute resolution. en-us Fri, 08 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Feb 2019 11:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375285 The Court rejected the authorities' stance on dismissing revision petitions for lack of progress, emphasizing delays not caused by the Petitioner. For appeals in various Assessment Years, the Court declined to impose strict timeframes on the Appellate Commissioner due to case complexity. Disagreeing with the Respondent's deposit mandate, the Court directed a 5% deposit for specific years within four weeks, ensuring a stay on coercive recovery pending appeal. The decision aimed to balance financial obligations while expediting appeal resolution within three months, promoting fair tax dispute resolution. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 08 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375285