← All Phrases

“stay of demand”

AppealsSection 220(6) / 254Section 220(6) / 254105 judgments

The decision most relied on for stay of demand is United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (97 Taxmann.com 466), cited in 17 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on stay of demand

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jt. CIT
97 Taxmann.com 466 · 2018 · Reported
17
citing judgments

A decision of the Chennai Tribunal that ignored co-ordinate benches of Mumbai and Kolkata, treating a conflicting decision as per incuriam, may not be binding. Conflicting decisions of Tribunal benches can warrant a stay of demand, similar to conflicting High Court decisions.

Judgments citing stay of demand

Vikas Jain, Noida vs. ACIT, CC-7, Delhi

ITA 8433/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 148

8436/Del/2025 2022-23 24.10.2025 30.03.2024 2. At the time of hearing of the Stay Application filed in these appeals seeking stay of demands for respective assessment years involved, it was found that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) were made in the absence of any submissions ... afresh adjudication. 7. The Ld. AR, however, submitted that direction be given to the Ld. First Appellate Authority below to revive the stay of demand. We find that the Ld. PCIT, Central Delhi-1, vide order dated 07.01.2025, had granted the stay of recovery proceedings pending disposal of the appeal

Adhi Ganesh Mandir Charitable Trust, Borivali West vs. Income Tax Department, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6720/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

chargeable under the Act is income and not receipts. Though the said observations were made in the context of a writ petition seeking stay of demand, the principle laid down therein is of general application and squarely governs the issue before us. 9. The aforesaid principle has also been consistently

Harianta Service Cooperative Society Limited, Choudwar Cuttack vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and stay petition stands dismissed

ITA 566/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumars.A.No.07/Ctk/2025 (In आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.566/Ctk/2025) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Harianta Service Cooperative Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Society Ltd., Harianta, Chowdwar, Cuttack Pan No. : Aaaah 5680 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Dullal Satyanarayan Jhesthy, Adv : Shri Vijaya Singh, Ld Sr Dr राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 5 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 5 /12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.9.2025 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi In Appeal No. Nfac/2018-19/10383549 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Assessee Has Also Filed Stay Petition Seeking Stay Of Demand Raised By The Revenue. 2. Shri Dullal Satyanarayan Jhesthy, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Vijaya Singh, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Ld Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Exparte. It Was The Submission That The Assessment Has Also Been Completed U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Dullal Satyanarayan Jhesthy, Adv
Section 144BSection 147

NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2018-19/10383549 for the assessment year 2019-20. The assessee has also filed stay petition seeking stay of demand raised by the revenue. 2. Shri Dullal Satyanarayan Jhesthy, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue

Sylvesa Infotech Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO Ward -1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, ITA Nos.538/CTK/2025 & ITA No

ITA 565/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.538 & 541/Ctk/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.565/Ctk/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Sylvesa Infotech Private Limited Vs Ito Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar Plot No.S4/10 Niladri Vihar, Sailashree Vihar, Bhubaneswar Pan No.: Aahcs 0489 D (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri B.D.Ojha & Shri Abhishek Ojha, Ars : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Appeared In Ita Nos.538&541/Ctk/2025 & Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr Appeared In

For Respondent: Shri B.D.Ojha & Shri Abhishek Ojha, ARs
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

Paper book for Assessment Order for AY 2013-14. 8. Assessee had filed an application for stay of demand against the impugned AY. Requesting attention of my lords to Pg no 12, 13 & 14 of paperbook. In Para 6.1 of the stay order, the party wise major receipts

Sylvesa Infotech Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, ITA Nos.538/CTK/2025 & ITA No

ITA 541/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.538 & 541/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.565/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Sylvesa Infotech Private Limited Vs Ito Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar Plot No.S4/10 Niladri Vihar, Sailashree Vihar, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aahcs 0489 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.D.Ojha & Shri Abhishek Ojha, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Appeared In Ita Nos.538&541/Ctk/2025 & Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr Appeared In Ita No.565/Ctk/2025. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri B.D.Ojha & Shri Abhishek Ojha, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR appeared in
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

Paper book for Assessment Order for AY 2013-14. 8. Assessee had filed an application for stay of demand against the impugned AY. Requesting attention of my lords to Pg no 12, 13 & 14 of paperbook. In Para 6.1 of the stay order, the party wise major receipts

Sylvesa Infotech Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, W1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, ITA Nos.538/CTK/2025 & ITA No

ITA 538/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.538 & 541/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.565/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Sylvesa Infotech Private Limited Vs Ito Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar Plot No.S4/10 Niladri Vihar, Sailashree Vihar, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aahcs 0489 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.D.Ojha & Shri Abhishek Ojha, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Appeared In Ita Nos.538&541/Ctk/2025 & Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr Appeared In Ita No.565/Ctk/2025. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri B.D.Ojha & Shri Abhishek Ojha, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR appeared in
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

Paper book for Assessment Order for AY 2013-14. 8. Assessee had filed an application for stay of demand against the impugned AY. Requesting attention of my lords to Pg no 12, 13 & 14 of paperbook. In Para 6.1 of the stay order, the party wise major receipts

Ikab Securitites and Investment Now Known As Mk Ventures Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO-4(1)(1), Mumabi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

ITA 6483/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Ikab Securities & Income Tax Officer Investment Now Known As 4(1)(2), Mk Ventures Capital Limited, 533, Aayakar Bhavan, Building No.05, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Raja Bahadur Compound, 43 Tamarind Lane, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaaci9007N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jotwani, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Shri Virbhadra S. Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2025 O R D E R Per: Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.08.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2015-16. 2. Perusing The Impugned Order, It Clearly Appears That While Deciding The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dt. 28/03/2025 U/S 154 Of The Act By The Assessing Officer, The Ld. Commissioner Has Not Issued Any Notice But Somehow May Be Oversight Or Inadvertently Taken In The 2 M/S. Ikab Securities & Investment Now Known As Mk Ventures Capital Limited Consideration, The Application For Stay Of Demand Dt. 26/05/2025 & Accordingly Disposed Of The Appeal, Without Adjudicating The Appropriate Issues Involved In The 1St Appeal Filed/Pending Before Him. Therefore, This Court Is Inclined To Remand The Instant Case To The File Of The Ld. Commissioner, For Decision Afresh, Suffice To Say By Provided A Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. 3. Thus, The Case Is Accordingly Remanded To The File Of Ld. Commissioner For Decision Afresh.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shri Virbhadra S. Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 154Section 250

oversight or inadvertently taken in the 2 M/s. Ikab Securities and Investment now known as MK Ventures Capital Limited consideration, the application for stay of demand dt. 26/05/2025 and accordingly disposed of the appeal, without adjudicating the appropriate issues involved in the 1st appeal filed/pending before him. Therefore, this court

Anil Kumar Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 834/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kanodia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250

arbitrary, excessive, and contrary to the principles of natural justice and remanding back the case to AO for fresh adjudication. 5. Kindly stay the demand 6. Assessee craves to alter, modify, change grounds of appeal before hearing.” 3. We find that the appeal filed by the assessee is delayed ... down in KishinchandChellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713 SC). Accordingly, the demand is liable to be annulled in entirety. Ground No. 5 : Kindly stay the demand. Reply : 8 Anil Kumar Meena, Jaipur. In light of the strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable hardship likely to be caused

Lexus Softmac, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 703/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.702 & 703/Srt/2024 Ays: (2014-15 &2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Lexus Softmac, Deputy Commissioner Of F -3 To F-6, Gujarat Hira Bourse, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), बनाम/ Gems & Jewellery Park, Surat Room No.108, Vs. Ichchhapore, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat - 394510 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabfl 0495 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Deven K Kapadia, C.A. राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

case, the appellant craves for admission of additional evidences in the interest of natural justice and equity. 10. Appellant craves for stay of demand. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time ... case, the appellant craves for admission of additional evidences in the interest of natural justice and equity. 9. Appellant craves for stay of demand. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time

Lexus Softmac, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 702/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.702 & 703/Srt/2024 Ays: (2014-15 &2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Lexus Softmac, Deputy Commissioner Of F -3 To F-6, Gujarat Hira Bourse, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), बनाम/ Gems & Jewellery Park, Surat Room No.108, Vs. Ichchhapore, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat - 394510 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabfl 0495 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Deven K Kapadia, C.A. राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

case, the appellant craves for admission of additional evidences in the interest of natural justice and equity. 10. Appellant craves for stay of demand. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time ... case, the appellant craves for admission of additional evidences in the interest of natural justice and equity. 9. Appellant craves for stay of demand. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time

Advantage India, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT (Central)-II, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 634/DEL/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mehra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT [DR]
Section 127Section 127(2)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

another PCIT charge; assume jurisdiction u/s 263; grant approval for issuing refunds and issue of notices u/s 148; to initiate coercive action or stay of demand etc. The Assessing Officer, on the other hand, would carry out the assessment and related functions. 15. The ld DR further submitted that there ... action for recovery of demand is to made, the ACIT/ITO has to take approval from the Pr.ClT(Central). Similarly, where the AO denies stay of demand in a case, the Pr.clT(Central) can review the decision of the ACIT/ITO. There are numerous such examples where the powers and functions over

Up State Food & Essential Commodities Corpn Ltd, Lucknow vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Office- 6, Lucknow

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 692/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 U.P. State Food & Essential V. The Dcit-6 Commodities Corpn. Ltd. Lucknow 17, Gokhale Marg Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aaacu3257G (Appellant) (Respondent) S.A. No.03/Lkw/2025 [Arising Out Of Ita No.692/Lkw/2024] Assessment Year: 2017-18 U.P. State Food & Essential V. The Dcit-6 Commodities Corpn. Ltd. Lucknow 17, Gokhale Marg Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aaacu3257G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Smt. Shivani Gupta, C.A. Department By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 26

passed by the National Faceless appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee has also filed stay petition requesting for stay of demand raised by the Revenue against the assessee for assessment years 2017-18. ITA No.692/LKW/2024 & S.A. No.03/LKW/2025 Page 2 of 12 2.0 The brief facts

Jasbir Singh, Khatima, U.S. Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Rudrapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 96/DDN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 250Section 253

condonation of delay supported by duly sworn in affidavit. The condonation application is reproduced as under: “Sub: Application for condonation of delay and Stay of demand. Statement on oath of S. Jasvir Singh S/o Late Sri Chanan Singh R/o H.NO.72, VILLAGE JARASU, PRATAPPUR, KHATIMA, DISTT. U.S. NAGAR-262308, UTTARAKAHAND

Rama Narasimha Phani Kiran Chellingi, Razole vs. Income Tax Officer, Amalapuram

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as

ITA 393/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri V. Janakiran, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, SR-DR

raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.393/VIZ/2025 2 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had applied for stay of demand before the Ld. CIT(A), who had granted a conditional stay. Thereafter, the assessee filed the present appeal before this ITA No.393/VIZ/2025 3 Tribunal ... seeking an absolute stay of demand. During the course of hearing, the Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) filed an application for withdrawal of this appeal and submitted that since the appeal for the relevant assessment year is still pending before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee does not wish

Micheal Gowda Lazar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and stay petition is dismissed

ITA 1163/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Ksp No.48/Bang/2025 (In Ita No.1163/Bang/2025) Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Micheal Gowda Lazar, Vs. Ito, No.1401, Near Begur Hospital, Begur Road, Ward – 4(3)(4), Begur, Bangalore. Bangalore – 5565 600. Pan : Acepl 0671 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. N. Madhavan, Redtd. Addl. Commissioner. Revenue By : Shri. Swaroop Mannava, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. N. Madhavan, Redtd. Addl. CommissionerFor Respondent: Shri. Swaroop Mannava, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

Appellant craves leave to Add, Alter or Deleteany Ground of Appeal at the time of hearing. 2. The assessee has also filed for stay of demand of Rs.32,72,831/- vide his stay application dated 08.06.2025. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return ... substantiate his claim with cogent documents and not to seek unnecessary adjournments for early disposal of the case. 10. Assessee has also filed stay of demand in stay application No.48/Bang/2025. Since we have remitted the quantum proceedings to the file of AO, therefore there is no need to adjudicate

Zaffer Ullah Shah S/O Sh Abdul Gani Shah Khokhar Complex Distt Police Line Street Doda 182201, Distt Doda vs. Income Tax Office Ward 2(4) Udhampur 103-Ward 10 Dhar Road Udhampur, Udhampur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 87/ASR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 87/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249Section 249(4)Section 250Section 69A

dated 15.02.2020 BSR 6320345) and a copy of the said challan has already been submitted before the AO on 25.02.2020 praying for stay of demand. He further submitted that in course of first appellate proceedings the assessee has never been allowed an I.T.A. No. 87/Asr/2025 5 Assessment Year

Komarasami Murugesan, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Ncc-2, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1169/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin, C.N., CIT
Section 69

Komarasami Murugesan :: 4 :: In this regard, it is noted that the Ld.CIT(A) has reproduced the contents of the written submissions praying for stay of demand filed before him and thereafter, decided the grounds of appeal of the assessee which is erroneous, since the assessee had filed detailed written submissions

Twopiradian Infotech Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 2(1)-Kol, Kolkata

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 247/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WARI the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

Section 245Section 246ASection 250Section 253

appeal is filed for making the correct assessment as per the mandate of law together with an APPLICATION OF CONDONATION OF DELAY AND STAY OF DEMAND. 9. That the aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 10. That the Appellant craves leaves to add alter, delete, amend

Twopiradian Infotech Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 2(1)-Kol, Kolkata

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 246/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WAR the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

Section 245Section 246ASection 250Section 253

appeal is filed for making the correct assessment as per the mandate of law together with an APPLICATION OF CONDONATION OF DELAY AND STAY OF DEMAND. 9. That the aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 10. That the Appellant craves leaves to add alter, delete, amend

Twopiradian Infotech Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 245/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WARI the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

Section 245Section 246ASection 250Section 253

appeal is filed for making the correct assessment as per the mandate of law together with an APPLICATION OF CONDONATION OF DELAY AND STAY OF DEMAND. 9. That the aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 10. That the Appellant craves leaves to add alter, delete, amend