https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457516 The HC disposed of a writ petition challenging an order under Section 220(6) directing deposit of 20% of disputed tax demand. The petitioner contested the penalty under Section 271D, arguing financial hardship. The HC found the impugned order inadequately reasoned, merely stating petitioner failed to provide evidence of financial hardship without examining prima facie case merits or balance of convenience. Following precedent from LG Electronics India and Kannammal cases, the HC permitted petitioner to file revision application within two weeks, provided no appellate order was passed, effectively disposing of the writ petition with revisional remedy option. en-us Wed, 09 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Sep 2024 16:20:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457516 The HC disposed of a writ petition challenging an order under Section 220(6) directing deposit of 20% of disputed tax demand. The petitioner contested the penalty under Section 271D, arguing financial hardship. The HC found the impugned order inadequately reasoned, merely stating petitioner failed to provide evidence of financial hardship without examining prima facie case merits or balance of convenience. Following precedent from LG Electronics India and Kannammal cases, the HC permitted petitioner to file revision application within two weeks, provided no appellate order was passed, effectively disposing of the writ petition with revisional remedy option. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 09 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457516