← 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

Bank of India, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 68/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok KanodiyaFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 201Section 201(1)

case learned CIT Appeal was not justified which confirming total demand u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) amounting Rs. 104564/-. 4. Kindly stay the demand 5. Assessee craves leave to add or alter any of the ground of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 6. Succinctly, the fact ... order of the AO and these grounds of appeal of the appellant are dismissed. 4.2 Ground No 4: The appellant had asked for stay of demand. The appellant had not submitted any explanation/documents for considering the stay of demand. Therefore, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 4.3 Ground

Bank of India, Jaipur vs. CIT Facless, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 17/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok KanodiyaFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 201Section 201(1)

case learned CIT Appeal was not justified which confirming total demand u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) amounting Rs. 104564/-. 4. Kindly stay the demand 5. Assessee craves leave to add or alter any of the ground of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 6. Succinctly, the fact ... order of the AO and these grounds of appeal of the appellant are dismissed. 4.2 Ground No 4: The appellant had asked for stay of demand. The appellant had not submitted any explanation/documents for considering the stay of demand. Therefore, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 4.3 Ground

Sunil Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-55(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 634/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraadvantage India Vs. The Pr. C.I.T 101-102, Oriental House Central - 2 Gulmohar Enclave New Delhi New Delhi

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.CIT(Central). Similarly, where the AO denies stay of demand in a case, the Pr.CIT(Central) can review the decision of the ACIT/ITO. There are numerous such examples where the powers and functions over

Nayanaben Gordhandas Jatwani, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle 1(3), Surat

In the result, Ground No.1 raised by the legal representative of the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.361/Srt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Nayanaben Gordhandas Jatwani, Vs. The Acit, 10/2390 Chow Bazar, Surat – Circle – 1(3), 395003, Gujarat Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaypj7362E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/02/2025

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 159(3)Section 250Section 69A

name of the deceased assessee. The tax and interest liability were also raised in name of the dead person and assessee the stay of demand was also rejected. The ld. AR has relied on the decision of the ITA No.361/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Nayanaben Gordhandas Jatwani Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Bhawani Alumina Products Pvt. Ltd., Howrah

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1650/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 264Section 68

Kolkata and communicated about the same before the DCIT, Circle-13(1), Kolkata on 18.05.2015 and made request for stay of demand till the disposal of first appeal. The assessee thereafter prayed for stay of demand collection before Ld. CIT(A)-5, Kolkata. On 08.02.2015 the assessee company filed

M/S. Mfar Holdings Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2089/BANG/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

appellants of the case of Ramnath Sao(supra). Besides, the assessee was aware that the CBDT has issued instruction with regard to stay of demand. Assessee, a corporate-assessee, filing returns of income of lacs of Rupees and assisted by highly qualified professionals cannot take shadow of umbrella of ignorance

M/S. Mfar Holdings Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ta, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 1670/BANG/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

appellants of the case of Ramnath Sao(supra). Besides, the assessee was aware that the CBDT has issued instruction with regard to stay of demand. Assessee, a corporate-assessee, filing returns of income of lacs of Rupees and assisted by highly qualified professionals cannot take shadow of umbrella of ignorance

Nani Gopal Jana, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 50(1), Kolkata

In the result, with the remanding back of the matter to the file of Ld

ITA 1984/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: us, the Ld. AR argued that the nature of business is such that there are mainly cash sales. The Ld. AR also stated that an year on year comparison was not justified since after demonetization the cash sales increased. It was also averred that the appellant deserves another opportunity to present his case before the authorities below so that the genuineness of the sale transactions could be established conclusively. 2.2 The Ld. DR stated that the appellant was negligent in not responding to

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

that 3 of the 4 grounds of appeal pertain to grievance related to adjustment of refund by the Ld. AO and prayer for stay of demand. It is felt that these issues deserve to be I.T.A. No.1984/Kol/2024 Nani Gopal Jana addressed by the Ld. AO at the time of assessment

Kasree Devi, Mawana Meerut vs. ITO Ward-1(1)(3), Ayakar Bhawan, Bhainsali Ground, Meerut

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1019/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 250Section 250(4)Section 69A

period underincome Declaration Scheme 2016 and deposited the entire Tax Deposit the entire Tax Liability as per the Scheme. 2. Appellant Seek the Stay of Demand as the entire tax liability has been deposited during the Income disclosure Scheme 2016” That the above ground itself explanatory and it was clearly

Sh. Sanjay Godha, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal. The Said Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Arises Because The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before Him Against The Order Dated 20/11/2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, By Acit, Circle-01, Jaipur.

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

stay of the demand and there are CBDT instructions on the same. The appellant also had the option of applying for the stay of demand before the appellate authorities and the constitutional remedy of the writ petition was also available. Further this ground made up by the appellant is only

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1221/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

For Appellant: 1. "A) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law
Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 244ASection 245Section 250Section 80G

disposal before Hon'ble CIT (A) and Trust has already paid more than 20% of the demand raised, the Trust has requested for stay of demand. As per Office Memorandum No 404172/93-ITCC dated 31.07.2023, the Trust is entitled to complete stay of demand. 2.31 Even on merits, the Trusts

Radiant Cement Company Private Limited, Kala Amb, Nahan vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office, Nahan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 187/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 187/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Radiant Cement Company Private Vs. The Ito, बनाम Limited, Kala Amb, Sirmour Nahan, Sirmour. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacr8765J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR

amend the aforesaid grounds before disposal of the appeal. 2. Assessee has also filed a Stay Application No. 13/Chd/2023 for stay of demand. 3. First, we shall deal with the appeal of the Assessee. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel of the Assessee requested the Bench to allow

Radiant Cement Company Private Limited, Kala Amb, Sirmour vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO, Nahan, Sirmour

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 186/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 186/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Radiant Cement Company Private Vs. The Ito, Limited, बनाम Nahan, Kala Amb, Sirmour Sirmour "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacr8765J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR

amend the aforesaid grounds before disposal of the appeal. 2. Assessee has also filed a Stay Application No. 12/Chd/2023 for stay of demand. 3 First, we shall deal with the appeal of the Assessee. Appeal on Ground Nos. 1 to 4 are against the addition

Neha Singh, Lucknow vs. ITO-3(2), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 23/LKW/2024[217-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 115BSection 129Section 142Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 69D

denial of opportunity of adequate hearing to this appellant.” In addition, the assessee has also filed Stay Application vide SA No.06/Lkw/2024 requesting for stay of demand. I.T.A. No.23/Lkw/2024 S.A. No.06/Lkw/2024 7 Assessment Year:2017-18 (C) On perusal of records it is seen that the Assessing Officer issued show cause

Vilas Sampatrao Garud, Yashshree Park vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Not Known

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 966/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.966/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Charuhas Dwarkanath UpasaniFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 10Section 115VSection 12ASection 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 153ASection 153C

amendment by the Finance Act, 2016, or, a memorandum of cross objections referred to in sub-section (4).] (7) An application for stay of demand shall be accompanied by a fee of five hundred rupees.] [(8) The Central Government may make a scheme, by notification in the Official Gazette

Shweta Infrastructure & Housing (I) Pvt. Ltd., Nashik vs. DCIT, Circle 13(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3851/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shweta Infrastructure & Housing Dy. Cit, Circle 13(2)(2), (I) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Samraat Head Quarters, A33, 7Th Marine Lines, Lane, Satpur Midc Road, Nice Mumbai-400020. Area, Nashik-422007. Pan No. Aajcs 4306 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/04/2024

For Appellant: None
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 220(6)Section 246A

objections raised on reasons recorded for reopening of respect of objections raised on reasons recorded for reopening of assessment proceedings. Section 220(6) Stay of demand on the essment proceedings. Section 220(6) Stay of demand on the essment proceedings. Section 220(6) Stay of demand on the facts

Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, Dublin (Ireland) vs. ACIT Circle 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

Accordingly, the additions made by the Ld. AO in the impugned case deserve to be deleted on the merit for the year under consideration. Thus, the grounds raised are allowed and appeal of asseessee ...

ITA 3672/DEL/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmastay Application No.52/Del/2024 (Ita No.3672/Del/2023) Assessment Year: 2021-22 & Assessment Year: 2021-22 Adobe Systems Software Ireland Vs Acit, Limited, Circle-1(1)(1), Dublin (Ireland), International Taxation, 4-6, Riverwalk, Citywest Business New Delhi. Campus, Saggart, Dublin 24, Ireland. Pan: Aahca7203M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate & Ms Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: Heard & Perused The Records. 2. The Stay Application In Hand Has Been Filed For The Stay Of Demand In Regard To Ay 2021-22 And, During The Course Of Argument, It Was Submitted By Ita No.52/Del/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)

Pronouncement : 09.02.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: Heard and perused the records. 2. The Stay Application in hand has been filed for the stay of demand in regard to AY 2021-22 and, during the course of argument, it was submitted by ITA No.52/Del/2024 the ld. AR on behalf

Humuza Consultants, Mumbai vs. The CIT (A), Nface Inc Tx Dept, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2193/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 115BSection 115OSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 15BSection 68

notice that the assessee has filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court against the refusal to grant stay of demand raised by the revenue. In the writ the Hon'ble High Court while granting the stay also directed admission of additional evidence disposal of appeal

Rajesh Omprakash Agrawal, Thane vs. DCIT (CC) 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, All Stay Applications of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1198/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharshi, Am Sa No. 53/Mum/2023 (Arising In Ita No. 1121/Mum/2014 For A.Y. 2009-10) Sa No. 56/Mum/2023 (Arising In Ita No. 1573/Mum/2015 For A.Y. 2010-11) Sa No. 54/Mum/2023 (Arising In Ita No. 884/Mum/2016 For A.Y. 2011-12) Sa No. 55/Mum/2023 (Arising In Ita No. 6671/Mum/20117 For A.Y. 2013-14) Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit, Circle 5(2)(1) 10T H Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Mumbai Mills Compound, Pandurang Vs. Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400030 (Applicant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach5332B

For Appellant: Shri Ninad Patade ARFor Respondent: Shri Sonumendu Kumar DR

Nos.132 to 135/Mum/2022 for A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2013-14 vide order of ITAT dated 21 October 2022. 02. Assessee was originally granted stay of demand vide order dated 14 March 2014, which has been extended by various orders of ITAT for fourteen times. All these appeals of the assessee

DCIT Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Suchir Chemicals Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 677/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit –Central Circle – 2(2) V. M/S. Suchir Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building (Amalgamated Company – Manan Pharma Pvt Ltd. W.E.F 01.04.2013) Room No. 806, 8Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Shiv Ashish M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri Prade, Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaccm7533K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Pooja Rander & Shri Rushabh Mehta Department By : Shri Manoj Sinha

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Rander &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha
Section 115JSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Union of India 120131 40 taxmann.com 112 wherein, this court while dealing with issue of non-granting of stay of demand in its writ jurisdiction has observed that any benefit which is received on capital account cannot be subject matter of Income-tax under section