← 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

Bhavesh Ghanshyam Advani, Mumbai vs. CIT(Intl Tax)-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5808/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR

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

Pranjali Enterprises P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The ITO-5(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is dismissed being not maintainable

ITA 1523/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantआअसं. 1523/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2017-18) Pranjali Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 53, Anand Bhuvan, Banganga Road, Walkeshwar, Mumbai 400 006. Pan: Aaecp-7957-Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Income Tax Officer-5(2)(4), Room No.566, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai- 400 020. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri B.K.Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri B.K.Bagchi
Section 154Section 250Section 253Section 270ASection 271

facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in direct to approach the Assessing Officer for stay of demand when he himself have power to grant the existing grounds of appeal or before the date of hearing.” 3. Shri Vimal Punmiya appearing on behalf ... Third Member concurring with the view of Accountant Member observed that order passed by the CIT(A) on an application seeking stay of demand is not a Final order and hence, such an order is not appealable before the Tribunal. The Third Member after considering various judicial precedence concluded

DCIT(E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Nehru Centre, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7461/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bledcit (E) – 2(1) V. Nehru Centre Room No. 519, 5Th Floor Discovery Of India Building Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug 13Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaatn2536J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dilip Thakkar Department By : Shri Dilipkumar Shah

For Appellant: Shri Dilip ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Dilipkumar Shah
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

ENCLOSURE-B This shows that the Revenue Authorities have acknowledged that Nehru Centre imparts Scientific and Industrial Research related education STAY OF DEMAND GRANTED BY CIT (E), Kindly appreciate that the Learned CIT(Expenditure) vide letter CIT (Expenditure/ Stay/2016-17 dated 06.10.2016 granted the Stay on demand raised

ACIT, Circle- 34(1), New Delhi vs. Sanjay Khanna (HUF), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 174/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 Acit, Vs Sanjay Khanna (Huf), Circle-34(1), B-127, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi. New Delhi-110052. Pan-Aaihs9436G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Y.K.Kapoor, Adv. Date Of Hearing 26.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2021

Section 3Section 54Section 54H

assessee had received enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of his property. He further submitted that Hon’ble Delhi High Court while granting stay of demand has held that the assessee’s claim for treatment of the enhanced amount received towards compensation u/s 54 of the Act is prima facie

Commssioner of Income Tax Delhi-Xvi vs. S.S. Ahluwalia

ITA - 255 / 2002HC Delhi14 Mar 2014
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

advised by Additional Commissioner to approach Deputy Commissioner, who had concurrent jurisdiction. Assessee complied and moved an application requesting Deputy Commissioner for stay of demand by way of two applications and a direction was passed to deposit 15% of the tax liability. Dispute arose whether the application under Section