https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766110 The HC dismissed the Petitioner's challenge to orders requiring a 20% deposit of the demanded tax for interim relief, rejecting the request for an unconditional stay. The Court found the Petitioner failed to prove financial hardship and lacked full disclosure of financial health. It upheld the necessity of the 20% deposit, emphasizing compliance with legal obligations and insufficient evidence supporting the Petitioner's claims. The Petition was dismissed without costs, reinforcing the importance of adhering to tax demand requirements. en-us Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:10:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766110 The HC dismissed the Petitioner's challenge to orders requiring a 20% deposit of the demanded tax for interim relief, rejecting the request for an unconditional stay. The Court found the Petitioner failed to prove financial hardship and lacked full disclosure of financial health. It upheld the necessity of the 20% deposit, emphasizing compliance with legal obligations and insufficient evidence supporting the Petitioner's claims. The Petition was dismissed without costs, reinforcing the importance of adhering to tax demand requirements. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766110