Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2019 (7) TMI 133

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....UMAR For The RESPONDENT : ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX JUDGMENT Heard Sri.P. B. Sahasranaman, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel. 2. Petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order of stay granted by the 1st respondent. The counsel for the petitioner contends that in the peculiar circumstances of this case imposing condition of depos....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e property security in lieu of depositing 40% imposed through Ext.P4 order. He prays for dismissing the writ petition. 4. The submissions made by the counsel are noted and prima facie this Court is of the view that the request of the petitioner to furnish immovable property in compliance with the depositing 40% is untenable and therefore cannot be considered much less a direction could be issue....