<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (2) TMI 334 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391890</link>
    <description>The court granted relief to the petitioner in a case concerning disputed tax demands. It quashed the rejection of stay on the balance disputed demand by Respondent No.1, directing an expedited decision by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and a stay on recovery until appeal disposal. The court also ruled against Respondent No.2&#039;s directive to pay 50% of the balance disputed demand, emphasizing compliance with CBDT guidelines. It invalidated impugned orders and provided ad-interim relief, cost coverage, and any other suitable relief. The court stayed the impugned orders&#039; effect during the petition hearing to safeguard the petitioner&#039;s interests.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Feb 2020 17:24:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=603259" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 334 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391890</link>
      <description>The court granted relief to the petitioner in a case concerning disputed tax demands. It quashed the rejection of stay on the balance disputed demand by Respondent No.1, directing an expedited decision by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and a stay on recovery until appeal disposal. The court also ruled against Respondent No.2&#039;s directive to pay 50% of the balance disputed demand, emphasizing compliance with CBDT guidelines. It invalidated impugned orders and provided ad-interim relief, cost coverage, and any other suitable relief. The court stayed the impugned orders&#039; effect during the petition hearing to safeguard the petitioner&#039;s interests.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391890</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>