← 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

Singla Builders and Promoters Limited, Chandigarh vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-1 Tax, Chandigarh

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

ITA 183/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, D.R
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

before the Ld. PCIT (Central), Gurgaon and also before the Ld. CIT(A). The same are pending consideration before both the authorities. Even the stay petition of the appellant is pending before the Ld. CIT(A) who has not at all taken cognizance of these petitions while passing the impugned

Carmel Convent, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Trivandram, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petition is dismissed

ITA 689/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

Income Tax Officer (Exemption) 6. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petition is dismissed. Order pronounced on March 07, 2024 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (Dr. Seethalakshmi) Accountant Member Cochin

Karnataka Miniorities Development Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and all the stay petitions become infructuous

ITA 1071/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillais.P. Nos. 1 To 4/Bang/2024 (In Ita Nos. 1068 To 1071/Bang/2023) &

For Respondent: Shri B. Chattraj, Advocate &
Section 10Section 144Section 148

partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and all the stay petitions become infructuous. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st January, 2024. (CHANDRA POOJARI) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 31st January, 2024. /MS / Page

Karnataka Miniorities Development Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Office, Ward-4(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and all the stay petitions become infructuous

ITA 1070/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillais.P. Nos. 1 To 4/Bang/2024 (In Ita Nos. 1068 To 1071/Bang/2023) &

For Respondent: Shri B. Chattraj, Advocate &
Section 10Section 144Section 148

partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and all the stay petitions become infructuous. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st January, 2024. (CHANDRA POOJARI) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 31st January, 2024. /MS / Page

Karnataka Miniorities Development Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and all the stay petitions become infructuous

ITA 1069/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillais.P. Nos. 1 To 4/Bang/2024 (In Ita Nos. 1068 To 1071/Bang/2023) &

For Respondent: Shri B. Chattraj, Advocate &
Section 10Section 144Section 148

partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and all the stay petitions become infructuous. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st January, 2024. (CHANDRA POOJARI) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 31st January, 2024. /MS / Page

Karnataka Miniorities Development Corporation Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Office, Ward-4(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and all the stay petitions become infructuous

ITA 1068/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillais.P. Nos. 1 To 4/Bang/2024 (In Ita Nos. 1068 To 1071/Bang/2023) &

For Respondent: Shri B. Chattraj, Advocate &
Section 10Section 144Section 148

partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and all the stay petitions become infructuous. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st January, 2024. (CHANDRA POOJARI) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 31st January, 2024. /MS / Page

M/S. Regional Oilseeds Growers Co-Operative Societies Union Limited, Chitradurga vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Davangere

ITA 1355/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 120(4)(b)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

assessment order, the Additional Commissioner seems to have washed his hands of the matter and left it to the Deputy Commissioner to decide the stay petition filed under section 220(6) of the Act. We are of the opinion that this was not permissible in law. The ratio

Vellattanjoor Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Thrissur vs. The ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Guruvayoor

ITA 225/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Dr. S. Seethlakshmi

For Appellant: Shri M. Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 271B

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [CIT(A)], vide it’s order dated 06.03.2023. The assessee has also filed a stay petition for staying the outstanding demand. 2. The basis of the assessee’s claim before us was the delayed receipt of the audit certificate from the office

Thazhayil Nidhi Limited, Pathanamthitta vs. The ITO (TDS), Alappuzha

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay application, dismissed

ITA 323/COCH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manohohan Dassa No. 65/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Thazhayil Nidhi Ltd. Income Tax Officer (Tds) Building No. 6/4 Alappuzha Thazhayil Building Vs. [Pan:Tvdto2397D] Elanthoor Pathanamthitta 689643 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abhijith Satheesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

s.2022, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [CIT(A)], vide his order dated 09.03.2023. The assessee has also filed a stay petition qua it’s captioned appeal. 2. The assessee’s only grievance before us, per the arguments advanced by it’s learned counsel, Shri Abhijith

Raju Dinesh Kumar, Salem vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Salem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1321/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1321/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Stay Petition No.43/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 3Section 69A

SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA.G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1321/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Stay Petition No.43/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 v. Shri Raju Dinesh Kumar, The Dy. Commissioner – 108A, Deivanayagam Pillai Street, of Income Tax, Shevapet ... delete the addition made towards cash deposits u/s.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act. 12. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Stay Petition No.43/Chny//2023 for AY 2017-18 13. Since the appeal filed by the assessee has been disposed off, the Stay Petition filed by the assessee

The Aymanam vs. Cb Ltd, Kottayamvs.the ITO, Kottayam

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed and SA dismissed

ITA 308/COCH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Sri. Amaljith P.J.CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80P

find no reason for sustaining the impugned disallowance. We direct accordingly, and the assessee succeeds. It’s appeal having been disposed of, the stay petition becomes infructuous, and is dismissed as such. 6. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed and SA dismissed. Order pronounced in the open

Kk Radhakrishnan, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed on the aforesaid terms, and stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 494/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das & Sa No. 104/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Ved, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153D

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kochi [CIT(A)], vide his order dated 16.06.2023.The assessee has also filed a stay petition, which was listed along with. 2. The appeal raises 5 grounds as under, which we shall take up inseriatim: ‘1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding validity ... each year; the taxing statute being liable to be read strictly. Further, the disposal of the instant appeal renders infructuous the assessee’s stay petition. We decide accordingly. 11. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed on the aforesaid terms, and stay application is dismissed as infructuous. Order

Shri Subramaniam Elangovan, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1074/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1074/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & S.P. No. 42/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. No. 1074/Chny/2023 Subramaniam Elangovan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 37, Laxarus Church, 2Nd Lane, Non-Corporate Ward 1(2), Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai. Chennai 600 028. [Pan:Aaape2824Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 26.02.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By 2692 Days Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition In Support Of An Affidavit, Wherein, Following Submissions Were Made:

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 69

assessee is also directed to furnish complete details with evidence and suitable explanations before the Assessing Officer for verification. 9. Coming to the Stay Petition filed by the assessee, since the main appeal has been adjudicated on merits, the stay petition filed by the assessee become infructuous and accordingly ... same is dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed. Order pronounced on 10th January, 2024 at Chennai. (MANJUNATHA, G.) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 10.01.2024 Vm/- आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant

Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society, Bijapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bijapur

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

ITA 1125/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Saidappa B. Gadadi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 250Section 69ASection 80ASection 80P

Counsel for Department Date of Hearing : 08.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 08.01.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal and stay petition by assessee are directed against the order of NFAC passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in ITA No.1125/Bang/2023 & SP No.43/Bang/2023 Primary ... assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Since we have remitted the appeal of the assessee to the file of ld. AO, the Stay Petition filed by the assessee became infructuous and dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and stay

Rohit Manoj Mehra, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 71 1 New Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 2806/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Since we have quashed the assessment order, we do not find it necessary to dwell into the merits of the case. 24. Since the stay petition has not been pressed by the assessee, the same is dismissed. 25. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 2806/DEL/2023

Mukkam Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kozhikode vs. The ITO Ward 2(3), Kozhikode

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the stay petition rendered infructuous

ITA 437/COCH/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Johnson George, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80ASection 80P

assessee though is at liberty to seek any other alternate remedy, where so advised. We decide accordingly.Since the appeal is disposed of, the stay petition become infructuous. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the stay petition rendered infructuous. Order pronounced on December 11, 2023 under Rule

Mukkam Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kozhikode vs. The ITO Ward 2(3), Kozhikode

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed and SA dismissed

ITA 436/COCH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Johnson George, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80P

find no reason for sustaining the impugned disallowance. We direct accordingly, and the assessee succeeds. It’s appeal having been disposed of, the stay petition becomes infructuous, and is dismissed as such. 6. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed and SA dismissed. Order pronounced on December11

Indus Towers Ltd, Gurugram vs. DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Petition of the assessee is hereby dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1051/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 115Section 14ASection 251(2)

assessee is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. 15. Since, the appeal is disposed off herein, the adjudication of Stay Petition of the assessee becomes infructuous. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Petition

M/S Prestige Marketing Division, Aluva vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi

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

ITA 578/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT- D.R
Section 10Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 68Section 69A

ITANo. 578/Coch/ 2022 (AY 2017-18) SA No. 41/Coch/2022 Prestige Marketing Division vs Pr. CIT 5. In the result, the assessee’s appeal and stay petition are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on October 31, 2023 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax(Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. (Manomohan

Sri.E.Noushad, Kollam vs. The DCIT, Kollam

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 18/COCH/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132ASection 153ASection 153C

03/Coch/2021 E. Noushad vs. Dy. CIT v. Shelly Products [2003] 261 ITR 367 (SC)). As we have decided the assessee’s appeals, his stay petitions become infructuous. We decide accordingly. 6. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the stay petitions dismissed as infructuous. Order