1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal Upholds Stay on Recovery in Assessees' Favor</h1> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessees in the recovery proceedings initiated by the Department for demands stemming from assessments for the block ... Appellate Tribunal Issues:Recovery proceedings initiated by the Department in relation to demands arising from the assessment for the block period 1989 to 2001-02.Analysis:The judgment pertains to petitions filed by assessees challenging recovery proceedings initiated by the Department due to demands from assessments for the block period 1989 to 2001-02. The assessees, part of a group of 35, had appeals pending before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had granted a stay on recovery until disposal of all appeals. The Revenue started recovery proceedings citing the second proviso to s. 254(2A) of the Act, indicating that if an appeal isn't disposed of within 180 days of the stay order, the stay stands vacated. The assessees argued that the proviso doesn't apply retrospectively, as the stay was granted before its insertion. They highlighted favorable decisions in 29 cases of the group, indicating a prima facie case in their favor. The Departmental Representative did not dispute the facts but defended the recovery action.The Tribunal treated the petitions as interlocutory applications seeking directions under s. 254(1). After reviewing the legal position, the Tribunal held that the stay granted in 2000 remained valid despite the proviso's insertion in 2001. It noted the favorable decisions in other cases of the group, suggesting a balance of convenience in favor of the assessees. Without delving into the merits of the pending appeals, the Tribunal concluded that the existing orders should stand, especially since the appeals were scheduled for hearing.In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the petitions in favor of the assessees, maintaining the stay on recovery and emphasizing the balance of convenience based on previous favorable decisions and the upcoming hearing of pending appeals.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
