Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
Insurer's investment gains and investment write-downs face Section 263 revision; enquiry upheld, Rule 5(b)(ii) lapse sustained, late corrigendum quash...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7241 to 7260 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The dominant issue was whether recovery of outstanding tax demand should be stayed under s. 220(6) while the assessee's stay application remained pending. The court held that no mandatory stay could be directed because the assessee's appeal before the ITAT had not yet been restored and the assessee had itself proposed payment of the demand in installments, undermining the basis for compelling a stay; accordingly, stay was refused. The Revenue was directed to decide the assessee's pending stay application under s. 156 expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, without treating the order as any mandate to grant stay. - HC
The dominant issue was whether recovery of outstanding tax demand should be stayed under s. 220(6) while the assessee's stay application remained pending. The court held that no mandatory stay could be directed because the assessee's appeal before the ITAT had not yet been restored and the assessee had itself proposed payment of the demand in installments, undermining the basis for compelling a stay; accordingly, stay was refused. The Revenue was directed to decide the assessee's pending stay application under s. 156 expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, without treating the order as any mandate to grant stay. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
