<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1998 (8) TMI 137 - ITAT MADRAS-D</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70508</link>
    <description>The Tribunal&#039;s stay jurisdiction pending appeal is an inherent and ancillary power to protect an appellant from coercive recovery of disputed demand. An assessee is not required to produce a Director of IT (Exemptions)&#039;s rejection order before the Tribunal can entertain a stay application, because the appellate forum itself is competent to consider interim protection when an appeal is pending. The text also states that the Registry should place stay applications before the Bench promptly and should not insist on impermissible procedural defects that delay hearing. Separately, where the Department has already recovered the entire disputed demand, a stay petition may be treated as not pressed and dismissed as infructuous.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Apr 2011 15:31:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=108853" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (8) TMI 137 - ITAT MADRAS-D</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70508</link>
      <description>The Tribunal&#039;s stay jurisdiction pending appeal is an inherent and ancillary power to protect an appellant from coercive recovery of disputed demand. An assessee is not required to produce a Director of IT (Exemptions)&#039;s rejection order before the Tribunal can entertain a stay application, because the appellate forum itself is competent to consider interim protection when an appeal is pending. The text also states that the Registry should place stay applications before the Bench promptly and should not insist on impermissible procedural defects that delay hearing. Separately, where the Department has already recovered the entire disputed demand, a stay petition may be treated as not pressed and dismissed as infructuous.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70508</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>