https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18087 The High Court held that insisting on a 25 per cent deposit as a condition for stay of recovery was unwarranted where the taxpayer's assets were under court control and could not be alienated, the disputed demand was pending in appeal, and the Revenue's interests were already protected by an existing stay on the remaining recovery. It further noted that binding CBDT instructions on stay of demand, together with the settled principle that beneficial circulars and instructions bind tax exercising taxing powers, favoured full stay when the assessed income was substantially higher than the returned income and no material justified a partial deposit. The deposit condition was set aside and recovery of the disputed tax stayed until disposal of the appeals. en-us Fri, 26 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:33:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18087 The High Court held that insisting on a 25 per cent deposit as a condition for stay of recovery was unwarranted where the taxpayer's assets were under court control and could not be alienated, the disputed demand was pending in appeal, and the Revenue's interests were already protected by an existing stay on the remaining recovery. It further noted that binding CBDT instructions on stay of demand, together with the settled principle that beneficial circulars and instructions bind tax exercising taxing powers, favoured full stay when the assessed income was substantially higher than the returned income and no material justified a partial deposit. The deposit condition was set aside and recovery of the disputed tax stayed until disposal of the appeals. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 26 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18087