<?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>Court Stays Reopening of Tax Assessment u/s 147; Criticizes Mechanical 20% Tax Demand Payment Requirement.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=53005</link>
    <description>Stay petition - Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Prima facie on the basis of coded language diary entries and retracted uncorroborated statement of an alleged beneficiary, perhaps, the additions made by the Assessing Officer is highly questionable - a mechanical approach by directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the tax demand is not correct - stay granted - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2020 12:15:43 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2020 12:15:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=610386" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Court Stays Reopening of Tax Assessment u/s 147; Criticizes Mechanical 20% Tax Demand Payment Requirement.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=53005</link>
      <description>Stay petition - Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Prima facie on the basis of coded language diary entries and retracted uncorroborated statement of an alleged beneficiary, perhaps, the additions made by the Assessing Officer is highly questionable - a mechanical approach by directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the tax demand is not correct - stay granted - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2020 12:15:43 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=53005</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>