https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310948 The HC set aside the order by the 1st respondent directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the disputed tax demand, finding it a mechanical application of CBDT instructions without proper discretion. The case was remanded for a fresh order, ensuring a fair hearing for the petitioner. The court prohibited any coercive recovery steps during the six-week period for issuing the new order. The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed. All pending miscellaneous applications were closed. en-us Mon, 30 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Nov 2023 06:09:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310948 The HC set aside the order by the 1st respondent directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the disputed tax demand, finding it a mechanical application of CBDT instructions without proper discretion. The case was remanded for a fresh order, ensuring a fair hearing for the petitioner. The court prohibited any coercive recovery steps during the six-week period for issuing the new order. The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed. All pending miscellaneous applications were closed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 30 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310948