https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394428 The court analyzed the deposit required for disputed tax demand under Section 220(6) and an Office Memorandum. It restrained coercive action by the respondent, subject to the petitioner not seeking adjournments. The petitioner's actions seeking adjournments were found in violation of court orders despite justifications, leading to emphasis on compliance. The court dismissed the petition due to gross suppression and misstatement of tax liabilities, imposing costs on the petitioner for lack of transparency. The outcome focused on legal provisions, compliance, and transparency, resulting in the dismissal of the petition with costs. en-us Wed, 04 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Apr 2020 11:49:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394428 The court analyzed the deposit required for disputed tax demand under Section 220(6) and an Office Memorandum. It restrained coercive action by the respondent, subject to the petitioner not seeking adjournments. The petitioner's actions seeking adjournments were found in violation of court orders despite justifications, leading to emphasis on compliance. The court dismissed the petition due to gross suppression and misstatement of tax liabilities, imposing costs on the petitioner for lack of transparency. The outcome focused on legal provisions, compliance, and transparency, resulting in the dismissal of the petition with costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 04 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394428