https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760979 A stay application under section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act must be decided by a speaking order after considering prima facie case, financial hardship and balance of convenience. A brief rejection that does not show application of mind to these recognised stay factors is unsustainable, and administrative instructions on stay cannot be applied mechanically to exclude them. The Madras High Court therefore set aside the non-speaking rejection, directed fresh consideration of the stay petition after hearing the assessee, and kept recovery in abeyance until that reconsideration. en-us Wed, 25 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Oct 2024 11:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760979 A stay application under section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act must be decided by a speaking order after considering prima facie case, financial hardship and balance of convenience. A brief rejection that does not show application of mind to these recognised stay factors is unsustainable, and administrative instructions on stay cannot be applied mechanically to exclude them. The Madras High Court therefore set aside the non-speaking rejection, directed fresh consideration of the stay petition after hearing the assessee, and kept recovery in abeyance until that reconsideration. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 25 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760979