https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784114 The dominant issue was whether the HC should grant a mandatory stay of recovery of outstanding tax demand under s 220(6) when the assessee's stay application was pending. The HC held that no such mandatory stay was warranted because the assessee's appeal before the ITAT had not been restored and the assessee had, by letter, undertaken to pay the demand in instalments, undermining the basis for coercive stay relief. Consequently, the HC declined to stay recovery and directed the Revenue to decide the assessee's stay application against the s 156 notice expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, clarifying that the deciding authority must act independently in accordance with law. en-us Wed, 24 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Dec 2025 08:56:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784114 The dominant issue was whether the HC should grant a mandatory stay of recovery of outstanding tax demand under s 220(6) when the assessee's stay application was pending. The HC held that no such mandatory stay was warranted because the assessee's appeal before the ITAT had not been restored and the assessee had, by letter, undertaken to pay the demand in instalments, undermining the basis for coercive stay relief. Consequently, the HC declined to stay recovery and directed the Revenue to decide the assessee's stay application against the s 156 notice expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, clarifying that the deciding authority must act independently in accordance with law. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 24 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784114