2026 (8) TMI 620

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Petitioner Sri. Prashanth S, Advocate For the Respondents : Sri. M. Dilip, Advocate ORAL ORDER: The petitioner, a public sector undertaking, is aggrieved by these two orders: [a] the jurisdictional Assessing Officer's Order dated 19.06.2026 [Annexure - B] and [b] the order by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengaluru-1 dated 17.07.2026 [Annexure - A]. The jurisdictional....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... request for modification are dealt in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 29.02.2016 and the Corrigendum issued thereto on the quantum. 3. Mr. Prashanth S, the learned counsel for the petitioner, proposes to elaborate on why the jurisdictional Assessing Officer and the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengaluru-1, should have reduced the term of deposit below 10% of the demand under the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....asoned why only 90% of the amount in demand must be marked as stayed and 10% as collectible. This Court is of the considered view that when the Authorities are required to reason based on certain parameters under the relevant Circulars, they must decide by giving reasons. 5. As reasons are not forthcoming in both the impugned orders, there is occasion for interference. At this stage, both Mr. P....