← 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

R 1177 Thirumalapadi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd, Thirumalaipadi vs. Income Tax Officer, Perambalur

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

ITA 3791/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri George George K & Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr.G.Reddi Prakash, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 80P

result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 8.0 Since the appeal was disposed of by this tribunal, the stay petition No.126 / Chny / 2025 for AY – 2015-16 filed by the appellant becomes in fructuous and accordingly it is dismissed. Order pronounced on 30th , December

Instakart Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Special Range-3, Bangalore

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 544/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate and Ms. AnkitaFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT

` IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Instakart Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Special Rang-3, Bangalore

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 543/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Voh

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

DCIT CC -1(4), Bengaluru vs. Instakart Services Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 531/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Voh

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

DCIT, CC-1(4), Bengaluru vs. Instakart Services Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 530/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Voh

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Instakart Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 496/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Voh

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Kumarasamy Ramalingam, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Erode

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the Stay Application is dismissed

ITA 3240/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3240/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & S.A. No. 120Chny/2025 [In Ita No. 3240/Chny/2025] Kumarasamy Ramalingam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 133, Mullai Nagar, Old Bus Stand Ward 2(1), Road, Perundurai, Erode 638 052. Erode. [Pan: Ajnpr1672H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Bhupendran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Babitha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 5 Grounds Of Appeal, Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Babitha, JCIT
Section 143(3)

assessee in S.A. No. 120/Chny/2025 is listed along with the main appeal. Since we have adjudicated the main appeal and allowed the appeal, the stay petition filed by the assessee become infructuous and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Harianta Service Cooperative Society Limited, Choudwar Cuttack vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and stay petition stands dismissed

ITA 566/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumars.A.No.07/Ctk/2025 (In आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.566/Ctk/2025) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Harianta Service Cooperative Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Society Ltd., Harianta, Chowdwar, Cuttack Pan No. : Aaaah 5680 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Dullal Satyanarayan Jhesthy, Adv : Shri Vijaya Singh, Ld Sr Dr राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 5 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 5 /12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.9.2025 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi In Appeal No. Nfac/2018-19/10383549 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Assessee Has Also Filed Stay Petition Seeking Stay Of Demand Raised By The Revenue. 2. Shri Dullal Satyanarayan Jhesthy, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Vijaya Singh, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Ld Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Exparte. It Was The Submission That The Assessment Has Also Been Completed U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Dullal Satyanarayan Jhesthy, Adv
Section 144BSection 147

dated 19.9.2025 passed by ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2018-19/10383549 for the assessment year 2019-20. The assessee has also filed stay petition seeking stay of demand raised by the revenue. 2. Shri Dullal Satyanarayan Jhesthy, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Vijaya Singh ... नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20) 6. As the appeal is restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, stay petition filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and stay petition stands

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 2890/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royita Nos.2889 & 2890/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv, &For Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT, DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

submitted that for the exclusion of the said comparables, reliance was also placed upon the order of the ITAT dated 14.08.2014 in Stay Petition No. 130/Bang/2014 IT(TP)A No. 271/Bang/2014 in the case of Cisco Systems (India) (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2014] 66 SOT 82/50 taxmann.com 280 wherein

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 2889/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royita Nos.2889 & 2890/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv, &For Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT, DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

submitted that for the exclusion of the said comparables, reliance was also placed upon the order of the ITAT dated 14.08.2014 in Stay Petition No. 130/Bang/2014 IT(TP)A No. 271/Bang/2014 in the case of Cisco Systems (India) (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2014] 66 SOT 82/50 taxmann.com 280 wherein

ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi vs. Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 2863/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royita Nos.2889 & 2890/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv, &For Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT, DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

submitted that for the exclusion of the said comparables, reliance was also placed upon the order of the ITAT dated 14.08.2014 in Stay Petition No. 130/Bang/2014 IT(TP)A No. 271/Bang/2014 in the case of Cisco Systems (India) (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2014] 66 SOT 82/50 taxmann.com 280 wherein

ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi vs. Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 2862/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royita Nos.2889 & 2890/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv, &For Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT, DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

submitted that for the exclusion of the said comparables, reliance was also placed upon the order of the ITAT dated 14.08.2014 in Stay Petition No. 130/Bang/2014 IT(TP)A No. 271/Bang/2014 in the case of Cisco Systems (India) (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2014] 66 SOT 82/50 taxmann.com 280 wherein

The Marthandam Bee Keepers Co Op Society Ltd, Kanyakumari vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Nagercoil

ITA 3039/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

The Marthandam Bee Keepers Co Op Society Ltd, Kanyakumari vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Nagercoil

ITA 3038/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Mr. R. Harshvardan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

Vijeyranga Textiles Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. The Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax Corp Circle 1, Cbe, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and Stay

ITA 2218/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 115JSection 68

Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 09.06.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2017-18. Stay Petition No.74/Chny/2025 is filed by the assessee for interim-stay of the outstanding demand raised by the impugned addition confirmed by the Ld ITA No.2218/Chny/2025 ... appeal of the assessee and direct deletion of ₹36,45,000/-. 6. Since we have disposed of the main appeal of the assessee, the Stay Petition filed by the assessee becomes infructuous and hence, dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and Stay Petition filed

Ravindra Kumar Agarwal, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Erode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and Stay

ITA 2216/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.S. Sridhar (Erode)For Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 69A

एवं एवं "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2216/Chny/2025 & Stay Petition No.81/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 v. Ravindra Kumar Agarwal, The ITO, 918, K.A.M. Complex, Park Road, Ward-1(1), Karungalpalayam S.O., Erode ... Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 04.07.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2018-19. Stay Petition No.81/Chny/2025 is filed by the assessee for interim-stay of the outstanding demand raised by the impugned addition confirmed by the Ld ITA No.2216/Chny/2025

Jily Mathew, Kochi vs. ITO, Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 760/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jily Mathew .......... Appellant Xviii/229C Anthiyalumkal, Convent Road Tripunithura, Ernakulam 682301 [Pan: Abdpm4915G] Vs. Ito, Corporate Ward - 2(5), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri. S. Venugopal, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 27.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head “Salary”. She Was Employed With Bsnl. The Appellant Had Filed The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 On 29.10.2020 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 34,77,620/-. The Same Was Revised On 31.03.2021 At Total Income Of Rs. 26,47,550/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Assessment Unit Of Income Tax Department (Hereinafter Called

For Appellant: Shri. S. Venugopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 143(3)

view of the fact that the appeals are decided, the petitions seeking stay of recovery of outstanding demand have become infructuous. Accordingly the stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous. 7. However the issue has not been examined by the authorities below from the angle of bona fide estimate made

Jayshree Chandrasingh Kabali, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 27 (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the stay petitions of the assessee are dismissed and both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7226/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K., Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271ASection 69

levy of penalty, the demand raised is of Rs.54,07,500/- against which also amount already paid mentioned by the assessee in the stay petition is ‘nil’. 3. Considering the order of the authorities below, both the parties agreed to take up the appeals for our adjudication. We have perused ... meritorious consideration. Accordingly, we are inclined to take up the appeals for adjudication along with disposing stay petition, both for the reassessment order and the penalty order. 5.1. Facts relevant to the delay in filing of appeals both, before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have already been narrated

Jayshree Chandrasingh Kabali, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 27 (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the stay petitions of the assessee are dismissed and both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7225/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K., Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271ASection 69

levy of penalty, the demand raised is of Rs.54,07,500/- against which also amount already paid mentioned by the assessee in the stay petition is ‘nil’. 3. Considering the order of the authorities below, both the parties agreed to take up the appeals for our adjudication. We have perused ... meritorious consideration. Accordingly, we are inclined to take up the appeals for adjudication along with disposing stay petition, both for the reassessment order and the penalty order. 5.1. Facts relevant to the delay in filing of appeals both, before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have already been narrated

M/S Absolute Herbs Exports Pvt Ltd (Successor in Interest of Kundan Care Products Ltd), Haridwar, Uttarakhand vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Karnal (Haryana), Karnal, Haryana

ITA 6256/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)

Hearing: 17.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 17.11.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal ITA No. 6256/Del/2025 along with his stay petition SA No. 550/Del/2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18, arise against the CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon’s in case No. 10345/CIT(A)-3/GGN/2019-20 dated