← 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

ACIT, Central-1, Indore vs. M/S Essence Commodities P Ltd, Indore

In the result all the appeals of revenue for A

ITA 184/IND/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Shreya JainFor Respondent: Shri P.K Mishra, CIT (DR)

jurisdiction under Section 2604 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. No substantial question of low is involved in this appeal. The appeal and the stay petition, accordingly, shall stand dismissed. 4.2.12From the above it is clear that even loss arises on off market transactions is not bogus

ACIT (Central)-1 Indore, Indore vs. Essence Commodities (P) Ltd., Indore

In the result all the appeals of revenue for A

ITA 675/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Shreya JainFor Respondent: Shri P.K Mishra, CIT (DR)

jurisdiction under Section 2604 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. No substantial question of low is involved in this appeal. The appeal and the stay petition, accordingly, shall stand dismissed. 4.2.12From the above it is clear that even loss arises on off market transactions is not bogus

Lakshmi S Alias Lakshmi Harigovind, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 611/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Arora & Sandeepgosain

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

decide accordingly. 5 ITA 611/Coch/2022& SA 43/Coch/2022 Lakshmi Harigovindan v. Asst. CIT 5. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Her stay petition, even otherwise premature, becomes, in view of the said dismissal, infructuous. Order pronounced in the open Court on February 03, 2023. (SandeepGosain) Accountant Member Cochin

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre-Circle-6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Rajiv Ratan, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 1434/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Dcit, Cc -6(4), Vs. Shri Rajiv Rattan Room No. 1925, 19 Th Floor, 60, 2 Nd Floor, Vasant Marg, Air India Building, Vasant Vihar, Nariman Point, New Delhi - 110057 Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aespr3957D Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 126/Mum/2022 (A.Y.2011-12) Shri Rajiv Rattan Vs. The Dcit, Cc -6(4), 60, 2 Nd Floor, Vasant Marg, Room No. 1925, 19 Th Floor, Vasant Vihar, Air India Building, New Delhi - 110057 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aespr3957D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Riddhi Mishra Respondent By : Meet Shah

For Appellant: Smt. Riddhi MishraFor Respondent: Meet Shah
Section 153CSection 245D(4)

orders of the lower authorities as well as Settlement Commission, we entirely agree with the above finding of the ITAT given in the stay petitions. From the assessment order, the relevant portion of which has already been reproduced above in this order, it is clear that the stand ... Settlement Commission for acquisition of any other asset In view of the above, we entirely agree with order of the ITAT passed in stay petition wherein the ITAT held that "the disclosure has been made by the company who has eamed the undisclosed income and routed in books through

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Century Real Estate Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 740/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar, D.R

issue and direct the AO to restrict the disallowance u/a 14A to the amount of exempt income. Since appeal itself is disposed of, the stay petition shall 12. become infructuous. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.” 13. 9.2 Further, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court

Century Real Estate Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 580/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar, D.R

issue and direct the AO to restrict the disallowance u/a 14A to the amount of exempt income. Since appeal itself is disposed of, the stay petition shall 12. become infructuous. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.” 13. 9.2 Further, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court

Eluppai Ramanathan Sridhar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 936/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: PendingITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Swaminathan, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)

file of the AO. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 4. Since we have heard the appeal and decided, the Stay petition becomes infructuous and hence, dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition

Heena Suresh Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 6617/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Blesuresh M. Jain Huf V. Ito-19(3)(4), 52A Nanu Bhai Desai Road 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 Mulji Thakersi Building 2Nd Floor, Mumbai-400004 Pan: Aalhs7460R (Appellant) (Respondent) Heena Suresh Jain V.

For Appellant: Shri. Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri. Vaibhav Jain
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)

jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal and the stay petition, accordingly, shall stand dismissed.” b) The JAIPUR ITAT in the case of VIVEK AGARWAL [ITA No. 292/JP/2017] order dated 06.04.2018 held as under vide

Suresh M Jain HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 6614/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Blesuresh M. Jain Huf V. Ito-19(3)(4), 52A Nanu Bhai Desai Road 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 Mulji Thakersi Building 2Nd Floor, Mumbai-400004 Pan: Aalhs7460R (Appellant) (Respondent) Heena Suresh Jain V.

For Appellant: Shri. Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri. Vaibhav Jain
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)

jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal and the stay petition, accordingly, shall stand dismissed.” b) The JAIPUR ITAT in the case of VIVEK AGARWAL [ITA No. 292/JP/2017] order dated 06.04.2018 held as under vide

Toyota Tsusho India Private Limited, Ramanagara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 175/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kriplani, CAFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

assessee. SP No.12/B/2022 & IT(TP)A No.175/B/2022 Page 15 of 15 25. Since the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee, the stay petition of the assessee in SP No.12/Bang/2022 is rendered infructuous not warranting any adjudication. Pronounced in the open court on this 9th day of September

Expat Engineering India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 503/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43B

this regard are untenable. 43. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed. 44. The appeal having been disposed, the stay petition filed by the assessee in SP No.31/Bang/2022 has become infructuous and dismissed as such. Pronounced in the open court on this 1st day of August

Desirazu Sundara Siva Rao, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

ITA 633/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 54Section 54F

both the appeals of the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. SP No.11/Bang/2021 15. Since the appeals have been dismissed, the Stay Petition becomes infructuous and is accordingly dismissed. 16. In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay

Nagaraj Desirazu, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

ITA 449/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 54Section 54F

both the appeals of the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. SP No.11/Bang/2021 15. Since the appeals have been dismissed, the Stay Petition becomes infructuous and is accordingly dismissed. 16. In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay

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

appeal of the assessee is pending before the learned CIT(A) i.e. the first appellate authority at the time of passing of order on stay petitions so, he has the power to grant stay. However, no appeal is pending before the Tribunal and there is no specific express power with

M/S. Brillio Technologies Private Limited (Formerly Known As Collabera Solutions Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 128/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Naresh K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M S Nethrapal, Addl. DIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 18. In view of the appeal having been adjudicated, the Stay Petition filed by the assessee in SP No.5/Bang/2022 has become infructuous and dismissed as such. Pronounced in the open court on this 08th day of June

Century Real Estate Holdings Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1588/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ramakrishna, CA
Section 10Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 153B

direct the AO to restrict the disallowance u/a 14A to the amount of exempt income. 12. Since appeal itself is disposed of, the stay petition shall become infructuous. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.” 9.2 Further, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court

ACIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi vs. P & R Infraprojects Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4944/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri V.K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Parikshit Singh, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

issued for all the impugned AYs, could not be factually controverted by the Revenue. During the hearing of the Stay Petition, the Revenue was specifically directed to produce the assessment record, for all these Assessment Years, during the final hearing. This was not done. During the course of final hearing ... issued for all the impugned AYs, could not be factually controverted by the Revenue. During the hearing of the Stay Petition, the Revenue was specifically directed to produce the assessment record, for all these Assessment Years, during the final hearing. This was not done. During the course of final hearing

Sumitomo Corporation India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Neac, New Delhi

Accordingly, ITA number 508/del/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is partly allowed

ITA 508/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Shashi Bhusan Shukla
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

well as to the assessee. 40 Accordingly, ITA number 508/del/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is partly allowed. 41 The stay petitions filed by the assessee in SA number 81 and 82/del/2021 for assessment year 15 – 16 becomes infructuous and hence dismissed. Order pronounced

Sumitomo Corporation India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Neac, New Delhi

Accordingly, ITA number 508/del/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is partly allowed

ITA 507/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Shashi Bhusan Shukla
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

well as to the assessee. 40 Accordingly, ITA number 508/del/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is partly allowed. 41 The stay petitions filed by the assessee in SA number 81 and 82/del/2021 for assessment year 15 – 16 becomes infructuous and hence dismissed. Order pronounced

Sabic India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle- 22(2), New Delhi

Accordingly direct the AO/ TPO to delete the TP adjustment of Rs.361320620/- appeal filed by the assessee is accordingly allowed

ITA 454/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143Section 144

delete the TP adjustment of Rs.361320620/- appeal filed by the assessee is accordingly allowed. 28. Since we have decided the appeal the stay petition in stay application No. 49/Del/2021 become infructuous. Order pronounced in the open court on 08.06.2021. (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *NEHA* Date