https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=88550 HC held that the assessee failed to deposit 20% of the disputed demand (Rs. 69,05,933/-) as a pre-condition for staying the demand for AY 2016-17. The outstanding demand was consequently recovered from the refund due for AY 2014-15 through an appeal effect order. The court rejected the assessee's contention that the refund adjustment was contrary to the office memorandum, thereby upholding the tax authority's action of recovering the disputed amount through available refund mechanisms. en-us Tue, 20 May 2025 08:53:38 +0530 Tue, 20 May 2025 08:53:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=88550 HC held that the assessee failed to deposit 20% of the disputed demand (Rs. 69,05,933/-) as a pre-condition for staying the demand for AY 2016-17. The outstanding demand was consequently recovered from the refund due for AY 2014-15 through an appeal effect order. The court rejected the assessee's contention that the refund adjustment was contrary to the office memorandum, thereby upholding the tax authority's action of recovering the disputed amount through available refund mechanisms. Highlights Income Tax Tue, 20 May 2025 08:53:38 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=88550