https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784113 After the assessee's application under s. 220(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was allowed by the AO and the assessee was treated as "not in default," the demand for the earlier AY stood stayed; consequently, the Revenue lacked authority to adjust refunds of a later AY against that stayed demand. As the assessee had already deposited more than 20% of the disputed tax to secure the stay, the HC held that only the stayed-demand adjustment was impermissible, not the stay-deposit. The HC directed the Revenue to refund, within six weeks, the amounts adjusted from the later-year refund pursuant to the intimation, excluding the stay-deposit. en-us Tue, 23 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Dec 2025 08:56:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784113 After the assessee's application under s. 220(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was allowed by the AO and the assessee was treated as "not in default," the demand for the earlier AY stood stayed; consequently, the Revenue lacked authority to adjust refunds of a later AY against that stayed demand. As the assessee had already deposited more than 20% of the disputed tax to secure the stay, the HC held that only the stayed-demand adjustment was impermissible, not the stay-deposit. The HC directed the Revenue to refund, within six weeks, the amounts adjusted from the later-year refund pursuant to the intimation, excluding the stay-deposit. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 23 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784113