https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210067 The court dismissed the writ petitions seeking a stay of recovery for outstanding tax demands, rejecting the petitioners' arguments regarding the legality of the Commissioner of Income-tax's order and the applicability of Section 220(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court found that the petitioners' conduct did not warrant protection under Section 220(7) as the income in question arose in Russia, not the U.K. Allegations of corruption and illegal gratification were noted but deemed irrelevant to the tax recovery process. The petitioners were ordered to pay consolidated costs of Rs. 20,000 to the respondents. en-us Wed, 20 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210067 The court dismissed the writ petitions seeking a stay of recovery for outstanding tax demands, rejecting the petitioners' arguments regarding the legality of the Commissioner of Income-tax's order and the applicability of Section 220(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court found that the petitioners' conduct did not warrant protection under Section 220(7) as the income in question arose in Russia, not the U.K. Allegations of corruption and illegal gratification were noted but deemed irrelevant to the tax recovery process. The petitioners were ordered to pay consolidated costs of Rs. 20,000 to the respondents. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 20 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210067