https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383241 The Court dismissed the appeal challenging the order under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, requiring the petitioner to deposit 40% of the total enforceable demand and furnish security for 35% of the enforceable total demand. The Court upheld the decision of the Assistant Commissioner, finding it justified based on the failure of the petitioner to prove the genuineness of credits in the Books of Accounts. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the directive for the petitioner to comply with the payment and security obligations as per the order. en-us Thu, 25 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Oct 2019 16:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383241 The Court dismissed the appeal challenging the order under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, requiring the petitioner to deposit 40% of the total enforceable demand and furnish security for 35% of the enforceable total demand. The Court upheld the decision of the Assistant Commissioner, finding it justified based on the failure of the petitioner to prove the genuineness of credits in the Books of Accounts. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the directive for the petitioner to comply with the payment and security obligations as per the order. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 25 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383241