https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382433 The court quashed the order dated 25.10.2018 for lacking detailed reasoning and failing to meet CBDT requirements. It granted the petitioner a stay against further recovery of the penalty amount, citing a strong case due to related issues in a quantum appeal. The court deemed the Assessing Officer's imposition of a 20% payment condition as arbitrary and capricious. It found the petitioner's case fell under CBDT guidelines, allowing for a stay. The court maintained the writ petition's validity, criticizing the haste in penalty recovery. The petitioner was granted a stay until the appeal's final disposal, with a requirement for a corporate guarantee. en-us Mon, 15 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Nov 2019 16:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382433 The court quashed the order dated 25.10.2018 for lacking detailed reasoning and failing to meet CBDT requirements. It granted the petitioner a stay against further recovery of the penalty amount, citing a strong case due to related issues in a quantum appeal. The court deemed the Assessing Officer's imposition of a 20% payment condition as arbitrary and capricious. It found the petitioner's case fell under CBDT guidelines, allowing for a stay. The court maintained the writ petition's validity, criticizing the haste in penalty recovery. The petitioner was granted a stay until the appeal's final disposal, with a requirement for a corporate guarantee. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 15 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382433