https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420972 The Court quashed the order rejecting the review application for stay, remanding the proceedings for a fresh decision. Despite this, a subsequent order was passed directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the tax demand, leading to a rejected review petition. The Court upheld the Assessing Officer's decision to require the deposit, finding it justified based on the substantial amount demanded. The petitioner's argument for unconditional stay without compliance was rejected, with the Court emphasizing the distinction from a cited judgment. The petition was ultimately dismissed, granting a four-week extension for the deposit. en-us Wed, 06 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Oct 2022 10:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420972 The Court quashed the order rejecting the review application for stay, remanding the proceedings for a fresh decision. Despite this, a subsequent order was passed directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the tax demand, leading to a rejected review petition. The Court upheld the Assessing Officer's decision to require the deposit, finding it justified based on the substantial amount demanded. The petitioner's argument for unconditional stay without compliance was rejected, with the Court emphasizing the distinction from a cited judgment. The petition was ultimately dismissed, granting a four-week extension for the deposit. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 06 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420972