https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420103 The Court set aside multiple orders directing the deposit of 20% of outstanding demand and seeking a stay on recovery proceedings. The petitioner's purchase of unlisted equity shares was re-characterized as depreciable assets, resulting in a significant demand. The Court emphasized the need for reasoned decisions and consideration of key principles in stay applications. Orders requiring the deposit of 20% were found to lack reasoning, leading to a remand for fresh adjudication with a personal hearing granted. The Commissioner of Income Tax was directed to decide on the stay application post-hearing, with a prohibition on coercive action until then, ensuring a fair process for the petitioner. en-us Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Mar 2022 17:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420103 The Court set aside multiple orders directing the deposit of 20% of outstanding demand and seeking a stay on recovery proceedings. The petitioner's purchase of unlisted equity shares was re-characterized as depreciable assets, resulting in a significant demand. The Court emphasized the need for reasoned decisions and consideration of key principles in stay applications. Orders requiring the deposit of 20% were found to lack reasoning, leading to a remand for fresh adjudication with a personal hearing granted. The Commissioner of Income Tax was directed to decide on the stay application post-hearing, with a prohibition on coercive action until then, ensuring a fair process for the petitioner. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420103