| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 2117 (Karn-HC) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 220
Court refrained from expressing any opinion on merits of contentions raised, but reiterated that PCIT was to exercise power conferred upon him as per Circulars in a meaningful manner. Petitioner was directed to be present before PCIT and request of petitioner would be disposed of in light of the observations in order within stipulated time.
|
Recovery - Stay of demand - Direction sought for immunity from recovery of demand until disposal of pending appeal -
Petitioner sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing revenue not to enforce notice of demand until disposal of appeal. Petitioner also sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash communication rejecting request for stay by competent authority by its order. Held: Court refrained from expressing any opinion on merits of contentions raised, but reiterated that PCIT was to exercise power conferred upon him as per Circulars in a meaningful manner. Petitioner was directed to be present before PCIT and request of petitioner would be disposed of in light of the observations in order within stipulated time.
REFERRED : Shriram Finance v. PCIT (W.P. No. 5425/2019 & W.P. Nos. 6166 & 6168/2019, decided on 1-3-2019) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 2055 (Mad-HC); Flipkart India Private Limited v. ACIT & Ors. (W.P. Nos. 1339-1342/2017, decided on 23-2-2017) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 0826 (Karn-HC)
FAVOUR : Partly in assessee's favour
A.Y. :
IN THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
OR Try Reload the Page |