← All Phrases

“stay petition”

AppealsSection 254Section 254340 judgments

The decision most relied on for stay petition is Allahabad in Dr. V.S. Chauhan v. Director of Income-tax, Investigations (336 ITR 533), cited in 21 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on stay petition

Allahabad in Dr. V.S. Chauhan v. Director of Income-tax, Investigations
336 ITR 533 · 2011 · High Court
21
citing judgments

A writ petition challenging a search operation is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches if the assessee unduly delays challenging the proceedings and only seeks to stall them when they anticipate an adverse outcome.

KishoreJagjivandasTanna v. Joint Director of Income Tax (Inv.)
98 Taxmann.com 235 · 2018 · High Court
11
citing judgments

A litigant who delays in pursuing their rights for over a decade, despite a favorable court order, does not deserve relief in discretionary and equitable jurisdiction.

Judgments citing stay petition

Credo Assets Private Limited, Punjab vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

ITA 185/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

adjournment was denied. 5.2 It was submitted that the demand involved in this appeal is in excess of Rs. 50 crores, on which, a stay petition was filed before the ld. PCIT (Central), Gurgaon and also one was filed before the ld. CIT(A). The same are pending consideration before

Credo Assets Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

ITA 184/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

adjournment was denied. 5.2 It was submitted that the demand involved in this appeal is in excess of Rs. 50 crores, on which, a stay petition was filed before the ld. PCIT (Central), Gurgaon and also one was filed before the ld. CIT(A). The same are pending consideration before

M/S Ambalapara Service Co-Op Bank, Palakkad vs. ITO Ward 2, Palakkad

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed

ITA 87/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

operative bank, with it’s entire income arising from the business of banking. 3.3 The appeals having been decided thus, the stay petitions become unfructuous. 3.4 We decide accordingly. 3 Ambalapara Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer 4. In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed ... statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed. Order pronounced on April 30, 2024 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Cochin, Dated: April 30, 2024 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned

M/S Ambalapara Service Co-Op Bank, Palakkad vs. ITO Ward 2, Palakkad

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed

ITA 86/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

operative bank, with it’s entire income arising from the business of banking. 3.3 The appeals having been decided thus, the stay petitions become unfructuous. 3.4 We decide accordingly. 3 Ambalapara Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer 4. In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed ... statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed. Order pronounced on April 30, 2024 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Cochin, Dated: April 30, 2024 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned

M/S Ambalapara Service Co-Op Bank, Palakkad vs. ITO Ward 2, Palakkad

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed

ITA 85/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

operative bank, with it’s entire income arising from the business of banking. 3.3 The appeals having been decided thus, the stay petitions become unfructuous. 3.4 We decide accordingly. 3 Ambalapara Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer 4. In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed ... statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed. Order pronounced on April 30, 2024 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Cochin, Dated: April 30, 2024 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned

M/S Ambalapara Service Co-Op Bank, Palakkad vs. ITO Ward 2, Palakkad

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed

ITA 69/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

operative bank, with it’s entire income arising from the business of banking. 3.3 The appeals having been decided thus, the stay petitions become unfructuous. 3.4 We decide accordingly. 3 Ambalapara Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer 4. In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed ... statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed. Order pronounced on April 30, 2024 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Cochin, Dated: April 30, 2024 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned

M/S Ambalapara Service Co-Op Bank, Palakkad vs. ITO Ward 2, Palakkad

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed

ITA 68/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

operative bank, with it’s entire income arising from the business of banking. 3.3 The appeals having been decided thus, the stay petitions become unfructuous. 3.4 We decide accordingly. 3 Ambalapara Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer 4. In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed ... statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed. Order pronounced on April 30, 2024 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Cochin, Dated: April 30, 2024 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned

M/S Ambalapara Service Co-Op Bank, Palakkad vs. ITO Ward 3, Palakkad

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed

ITA 67/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

operative bank, with it’s entire income arising from the business of banking. 3.3 The appeals having been decided thus, the stay petitions become unfructuous. 3.4 We decide accordingly. 3 Ambalapara Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer 4. In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed ... statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed. Order pronounced on April 30, 2024 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Cochin, Dated: April 30, 2024 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned

Pallathukadavil Ibrahimkutty Abdul Kabeer, Ernakulam vs. The PCIT Kochi-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed on the above terms, and his SA dismissed

ITA 428/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicialmember & Sa No. 78/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pallathukadavil Ibrahimkutty Principal Cit – 1 Abdul Kabeer C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road 71, Pallathukadavil Vs. Kochi 682018 Kanjoor P.O., Ernakulam 682575 [Pan: Aaopi0584P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Padmanathan K.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54B

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (Pr.CIT) vide his order u/s. 263 of the Act dated 29.03.2023. The assessee has also filed a Stay Petition qua his appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee returned his income for the relevant year on 31.03.2019 at Rs.7

M/S Ambalapara Service Co-Op Bank, Palakkad vs. ITO Ward 3, Palakkad

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed

ITA 34/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

operative bank, with it’s entire income arising from the business of banking. 3.3 The appeals having been decided thus, the stay petitions become unfructuous. 3.4 We decide accordingly. 3 Ambalapara Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer 4. In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed ... statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed. Order pronounced on April 30, 2024 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Cochin, Dated: April 30, 2024 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned

Kddi Corporation, Japan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle 2(1), Bangalore, Karnataka, Japan

ITA 102/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P. Nos. 7 To 9/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024) & It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024

For Appellant: Shri Arjit Prasad, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Subash K R, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 201

S.P. Nos. 7 to 9/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos. 100 to 102/Bang/2024 Page 1 of 32 IN THE INCOME TAX

Kddi Corporation, Japan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle 2(1), Bangalore, Karnataka

ITA 101/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P. Nos. 7 To 9/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024) & It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024

For Appellant: Shri Arjit Prasad, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Subash K R, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 201

Page 1 of 32 S.P. Nos. 7 to 9/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos. 100 to 102/Bang/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX

Kddi Corporation, Japan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle 2(1), Bangalore, Karnataka

ITA 100/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P. Nos. 7 To 9/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024) & It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024

For Appellant: Shri Arjit Prasad, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Subash K R, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 201

Page 1 of 32 S.P. Nos. 7 to 9/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos. 100 to 102/Bang/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX

Esatto Builders P. Ltd, Kozhikkode vs. The ACIT, Kozhikkode

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed on the foregoing terms, and it’s stay petition dismissed as unfructuous

ITA 559/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Sa No. 120/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Esatto Builders Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit, Circle - 2(1) 29/229 A5, 229 A6, Jp Complex Kozhikode 673001 Near Civil Station, Quilandy Vs. Kozhikode 673305 [Pan: Aacce2371D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jestin Mathew, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250(1)Section 250(6)

assessment order; Form 35; and the impugned order, i.e., it’s office address. The address in F/36 dated 13.07.2023, as well as in the stay petitions before the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court, is also the same. The plea is thus not tenable; rather found false on facts ... with the Revenue. 3.6 We decide accordingly. 4. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed on the foregoing terms, and it’s stay petition dismissed as unfructuous. Order pronounced on March 26, 2024 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member

Pattathanam Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kollam vs. The ITO, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, the assessee’s appeal and stay petition are dismissed

ITA 352/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Sano. 96/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Pattathanam Service Co-Op. Income Tax Officer Bank Ltd. Ward -2, Kollam Pattathanam P.O. Vs. Kollam 691021 [Pan: Aacap4888Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sabu C.S., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 271BSection 273BSection 274Section 44ASection 80Section 80PSection 80P(1)

271B of Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 vide order dated 11/01/2022. The assessee has also filed a stay petition qua it’s instant appeal. 2. Section 271B of the Act provides for a levy of penalty where an assessee contravenes, without reasonable cause ... stay application infructuous. 4 SA No. 96/Coch/2023 Pattathanam Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. ITO 6. In the result, the assessee’s appeal and stay petition are dismissed. Order pronounced on March 26, 2024 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Cochin

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle International Tax 3(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 885/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

2239/Del/2023 2015-16 Partly Allowed 2240/Del/2023 2020-21 Partly Allowed for statistical purposes 41. Since, appeals of the assessee are hereby disposed of, the stay petitions No. 200/Del/2023 and 201/Del/2023 preferred by the assessee for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 respectively are hereby dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle International Tax 3(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 884/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

2239/Del/2023 2015-16 Partly Allowed 2240/Del/2023 2020-21 Partly Allowed for statistical purposes 41. Since, appeals of the assessee are hereby disposed of, the stay petitions No. 200/Del/2023 and 201/Del/2023 preferred by the assessee for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 respectively are hereby dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Taxation 3(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2240/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

2239/Del/2023 2015-16 Partly Allowed 2240/Del/2023 2020-21 Partly Allowed for statistical purposes 41. Since, appeals of the assessee are hereby disposed of, the stay petitions No. 200/Del/2023 and 201/Del/2023 preferred by the assessee for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 respectively are hereby dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Taxation 3(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2239/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

2239/Del/2023 2015-16 Partly Allowed 2240/Del/2023 2020-21 Partly Allowed for statistical purposes 41. Since, appeals of the assessee are hereby disposed of, the stay petitions No. 200/Del/2023 and 201/Del/2023 preferred by the assessee for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 respectively are hereby dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced

Unnikrishnan. K, Kunnampally vs. The ITO Ward 2, Tirur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms, and his stay petition dismissed

ITA 955/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148(1)

appeal, his stay application is rendered infructuous. 9. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms, and his stay petition dismissed. Order pronounced on March 12, 2024 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (Dr. Seethalakshmi) Accountant Member Cochin, Dated: March