https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396705 The High Court set aside the impugned order directing the petitioner, a registered company functioning as a Portfolio Manager, to pay 20% of the demanded amount in response to stay applications for assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The Court emphasized the lack of detailed reasoning and mechanical passing of the order, leading to a remittal of the matter to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for a fair reevaluation within two months. This decision underscored the importance of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in ensuring procedural fairness and proper consideration of arguments and Circulars in tax assessment matters. en-us Mon, 29 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Jul 2020 23:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396705 The High Court set aside the impugned order directing the petitioner, a registered company functioning as a Portfolio Manager, to pay 20% of the demanded amount in response to stay applications for assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The Court emphasized the lack of detailed reasoning and mechanical passing of the order, leading to a remittal of the matter to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for a fair reevaluation within two months. This decision underscored the importance of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in ensuring procedural fairness and proper consideration of arguments and Circulars in tax assessment matters. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 29 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396705