2018 (2) TMI 1465

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... te ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. The petitioner had approached at a later stage where the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax had required the petitioner to pay 20% of the demand arising out of the order of assessment to grant stay pending appeal. By way of our order dated 29.08.2017, we had noted the petitioner's contention including the contention that this circu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssment year 2013-14 which is the assessment year in the present case on hand. According to the counsel for the petitioner thus, after the adjustment for the refund of the earlier year, the deposit towards disputed tax liability for the current year would exceed 20%. Counsel for the Revenue do not dispute this factual assertion of the petitioner. 3. In view of these developments, no further relief .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X