https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447249 Delhi HC dismissed petitioner's writ petition seeking stay of tax demand during pendency of appeal before CIT(A). Court held that while power under Section 220(6) is discretionary and doesn't mandate 20% pre-deposit, petitioner failed to establish prima facie case. AO's findings indicated transaction with foreign entity was based on "reverse engineering" and accounts weren't properly maintained. Court clarified its findings were limited to writ proceedings and wouldn't prejudice appellate proceedings. en-us Wed, 29 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jan 2025 18:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447249 Delhi HC dismissed petitioner's writ petition seeking stay of tax demand during pendency of appeal before CIT(A). Court held that while power under Section 220(6) is discretionary and doesn't mandate 20% pre-deposit, petitioner failed to establish prima facie case. AO's findings indicated transaction with foreign entity was based on "reverse engineering" and accounts weren't properly maintained. Court clarified its findings were limited to writ proceedings and wouldn't prejudice appellate proceedings. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447249