https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211905 The court ruled in favor of the Petitioner, setting aside the rejection of the application for stay under Section 220(6) by the first Respondent. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory period for payment of demand under Section 220(1) and found the immediate payment demand unjustified. The court upheld the provisional attachment on mutual funds to protect the Revenue's interests, directing it to remain in force until the appeal process concluded. No coercive recovery measures were permitted against the Petitioner during this period, allowing time for legal remedies against the Commissioner of Income Tax's decision. en-us Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Feb 2014 11:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211905 The court ruled in favor of the Petitioner, setting aside the rejection of the application for stay under Section 220(6) by the first Respondent. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory period for payment of demand under Section 220(1) and found the immediate payment demand unjustified. The court upheld the provisional attachment on mutual funds to protect the Revenue's interests, directing it to remain in force until the appeal process concluded. No coercive recovery measures were permitted against the Petitioner during this period, allowing time for legal remedies against the Commissioner of Income Tax's decision. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211905