https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410216 The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the release of the attached property from the attachment order dated 25.11.2019. The Court found that the petitioner had fulfilled the condition of depositing 20% of the demand amount for staying the effect of the demand order. It was held that the tax recovery officer lacked the authority to lift the attachment until the entire demand was collected or the dispute was resolved before the Appellate Forum. en-us Fri, 16 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Jul 2021 08:48:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410216 The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the release of the attached property from the attachment order dated 25.11.2019. The Court found that the petitioner had fulfilled the condition of depositing 20% of the demand amount for staying the effect of the demand order. It was held that the tax recovery officer lacked the authority to lift the attachment until the entire demand was collected or the dispute was resolved before the Appellate Forum. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 16 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410216