← 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

DCIT Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the stay applications of the assessee are allowed

ITA 383/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshs No. Sa No. In Ita No. For Ay 1 375/Del/2025 1833/Del/2009 2001-02 2 376/Del/2025 1834/Del/2009 2002-03 3 377/Del/2025 1835/Del/2009 2003-04 4 378/Del/2025 1836/Del/2009 2004-05 5 379/Del/2025 3313/Del/2013 2005-06 6 380/Del/2025 3314/Del/2013 2006-07 7 381/Del/2025 5671/Del/2011 2007-08 8 382/Del/2025 4054/Del/2014 2008-09 9 383/Del/2025 1974/Del/2014 2009-10 10 384/Del/2025 2088/Del/2017 2010-11 11 385/Del/2025 2089/Del/2017 2011-12 12 386/Del/2025 2090/Del/2017 2012-13 Oracle Corporation, Vs. Addl Dit, C/O- 2, Pricewater House Circle-2(1), Coopers Pvt. Ltd., Gate International No. 2Nd Floor, Sucheta Taxation, New Bhawan, 11-A, Vishnu Delhi Digamber Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaco0207A Assessee By : Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv Shri Atishay Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Tanay Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri G. C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Tanay Sharma, Sr. DR

BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. By virtue by these stay applications, the assessee is seeking extension of stay of demand to be kept in abeyance till the disposal of appeals by this Tribunal. 2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In these cases, extension ... disposal of these appeals could not be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we deem it fit and appropriate to grant of extension of stay of demand for a further period of 180 days or till the disposal of appeals, whichever is earlier. The assessee is directed to produce paper books

Jayant Security and Finance Ltd, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 91/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 147Section 156Section 220(6)Section 221(1)Section 246ASection 253

made any application before the “High Pitched Assessment Committee” which are working from the office of PCCIT, Bhopal and Chhattisgarh at Bhopal for stay of demand. No submission or even a letter to Ld. A.O or to the Range head or to the Office of PCIT for the stay

Jayant Security and Finance Ltd, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 90/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 147Section 156Section 220(6)Section 221(1)Section 246ASection 253

made any application before the “High Pitched Assessment Committee” which are working from the office of PCCIT, Bhopal and Chhattisgarh at Bhopal for stay of demand. No submission or even a letter to Ld. A.O or to the Range head or to the Office of PCIT for the stay

Jayant Security and Finance Ltd, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 89/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 147Section 156Section 220(6)Section 221(1)Section 246ASection 253

made any application before the “High Pitched Assessment Committee” which are working from the office of PCCIT, Bhopal and Chhattisgarh at Bhopal for stay of demand. No submission or even a letter to Ld. A.O or to the Range head or to the Office of PCIT for the stay

Jayant Security and Finance Ltd, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

ITA 88/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 147Section 156Section 220(6)Section 221(1)Section 246ASection 253

made any application before the “High Pitched Assessment Committee” which are working from the office of PCCIT, Bhopal and Chhattisgarh at Bhopal for stay of demand. No submission or even a letter to Ld. A.O or to the Range head or to the Office of PCIT for the stay

Jayant Security and Finance Ltd, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

ITA 86/IND/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 147Section 156Section 220Section 220(6)Section 221(1)Section 246ASection 253

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Prabha Tripathi L/R of Late Raghav Ram Tripathi, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer 2(1), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 37/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 143(3)

long time , follow ups, the pendency of the proceedings of my husband , came to our knowledge when we attended Income Tax Department for Stay of demand and release of bank account. d. Hence , | have to submit and request that | was not able to submit the appeal on time because

Wavoo Real Estate Corporation, Chennai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Applications are dismissed

ITA 764/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.762, 763 & 764/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 & S.A. Nos. 52, 53 & 54/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. Nos.762, 763 & 764/Chny/2025] Wavoo Real Estate Corporation, Vs. The Dcit/Assistant Commissioner Of Wavoo Mansion, 48/39, Rajaji Salai, Income Tax, 1St Floor, Room No. 106, Mannady, Non Corporate Ward 12(1), Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafw0270G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Stay Applications Are Filed By The Petitioner Seeking Grant Of Stay From Recovery Of Outstanding Disputed Demand Of ₹.1,07,85,566/- For Ay 2013-14, ₹.2,61,518/- For Ay 2014-15 & ₹.13,88,831/- For Ay 2016-17 Till The Final Disposal Of The Appeals Filed By The Petitioner.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194I

petitions, wherein, the assessee sought to direct the Assessing Officer not to take any coercive measures till the disposal of main appeals and stay of demand of outstanding tax liability. Therefore, we proceed to hear the ld. DR on the stay on demand as well as main appeals

Wavoo Real Estate Corporation, Chennai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Applications are dismissed

ITA 763/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.762, 763 & 764/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 & S.A. Nos. 52, 53 & 54/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. Nos.762, 763 & 764/Chny/2025] Wavoo Real Estate Corporation, Vs. The Dcit/Assistant Commissioner Of Wavoo Mansion, 48/39, Rajaji Salai, Income Tax, 1St Floor, Room No. 106, Mannady, Non Corporate Ward 12(1), Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafw0270G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Stay Applications Are Filed By The Petitioner Seeking Grant Of Stay From Recovery Of Outstanding Disputed Demand Of ₹.1,07,85,566/- For Ay 2013-14, ₹.2,61,518/- For Ay 2014-15 & ₹.13,88,831/- For Ay 2016-17 Till The Final Disposal Of The Appeals Filed By The Petitioner.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194I

petitions, wherein, the assessee sought to direct the Assessing Officer not to take any coercive measures till the disposal of main appeals and stay of demand of outstanding tax liability. Therefore, we proceed to hear the ld. DR on the stay on demand as well as main appeals

Wavoo Real Estate Corporation, Chennai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Applications are dismissed

ITA 762/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.762, 763 & 764/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 & S.A. Nos. 52, 53 & 54/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. Nos.762, 763 & 764/Chny/2025] Wavoo Real Estate Corporation, Vs. The Dcit/Assistant Commissioner Of Wavoo Mansion, 48/39, Rajaji Salai, Income Tax, 1St Floor, Room No. 106, Mannady, Non Corporate Ward 12(1), Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafw0270G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Stay Applications Are Filed By The Petitioner Seeking Grant Of Stay From Recovery Of Outstanding Disputed Demand Of ₹.1,07,85,566/- For Ay 2013-14, ₹.2,61,518/- For Ay 2014-15 & ₹.13,88,831/- For Ay 2016-17 Till The Final Disposal Of The Appeals Filed By The Petitioner.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194I

petitions, wherein, the assessee sought to direct the Assessing Officer not to take any coercive measures till the disposal of main appeals and stay of demand of outstanding tax liability. Therefore, we proceed to hear the ld. DR on the stay on demand as well as main appeals

Friday Hinge, Meghalaya vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Guwahati

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 264/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati04 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, JCIT
Section 10(26)Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

craves for stay on the demand. The assessee carves for relief from payment of income tax and interest thereon, and also for a stay of demand as determined till the disposal of this appeal. (viii) The assessee pray that since the assessee also has agricultural business and hence the amount

Friday Hinge, Meghalaya vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Guwahati

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 263/GTY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati04 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, JCIT
Section 10(26)Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

craves for stay on the demand. The assessee carves for relief from payment of income tax and interest thereon, and also for a stay of demand as determined till the disposal of this appeal. (viii) The assessee pray that since the assessee also has agricultural business and hence the amount

Deputy Commissinoer of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 470/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1282, 1283, 1284 & 1285/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. V. The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.470, 1339, 1438, 1462 & 1463/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2018-19, 2011-12, 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate; Mr. Balachandar, Fca Department By Mr. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 22.01.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 19.03.2025

Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)

benches of the Tribunal. Therefore, prima facie per incurium. In any case the CBDT Circular No. 530 dated 6 March 1989 states that stay of demand be granted where there are conflicting decisions of the High Court. This principle can be extended to the conflicting decisions of the different benches

Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 1463/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1282, 1283, 1284 & 1285/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. V. The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.470, 1339, 1438, 1462 & 1463/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2018-19, 2011-12, 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate; Mr. Balachandar, Fca : Mr. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.03.2025

For Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate
Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)

benches of the Tribunal. Therefore, prima facie per incurium. In any case the CBDT Circular No. 530 dated 6 March 1989 states that stay of demand be granted where there are conflicting decisions of the High Court. This principle can be extended to the conflicting decisions of the different benches

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

ITA 1462/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep BagmarFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)

benches of the Tribunal. Therefore, prima facie per incurium. In any case the CBDT Circular No. 530 dated 6 March 1989 states that stay of demand be granted where there are conflicting decisions of the High Court. This principle can be extended to the conflicting decisions of the different benches

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nungambakkam Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

ITA 1438/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep BagmarFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)

benches of the Tribunal. Therefore, prima facie per incurium. In any case the CBDT Circular No. 530 dated 6 March 1989 states that stay of demand be granted where there are conflicting decisions of the High Court. This principle can be extended to the conflicting decisions of the different benches

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

ITA 1339/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep BagmarFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)

benches of the Tribunal. Therefore, prima facie per incurium. In any case the CBDT Circular No. 530 dated 6 March 1989 states that stay of demand be granted where there are conflicting decisions of the High Court. This principle can be extended to the conflicting decisions of the different benches

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp Ward 8, Chennai

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

ITA 1285/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep BagmarFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)

benches of the Tribunal. Therefore, prima facie per incurium. In any case the CBDT Circular No. 530 dated 6 March 1989 states that stay of demand be granted where there are conflicting decisions of the High Court. This principle can be extended to the conflicting decisions of the different benches

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp Circle 8, Chennai

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

ITA 1284/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep BagmarFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)

benches of the Tribunal. Therefore, prima facie per incurium. In any case the CBDT Circular No. 530 dated 6 March 1989 states that stay of demand be granted where there are conflicting decisions of the High Court. This principle can be extended to the conflicting decisions of the different benches

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp Circle 8, Chennai

ITA 1282/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2011-12
Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)Section 40

benches of the Tribunal. Therefore, prima facie per incurium. In any case the CBDT Circular No. 530 dated 6 March 1989 states that stay of demand be granted where there are conflicting decisions of the High Court. This principle can be extended to the conflicting decisions of the different benches