https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784111 In considering a stay application under s. 220(6) of the Income-tax Act, the HC held that the AO cannot treat deposit of 20% of the outstanding demand as a mandatory precondition for entertaining or deciding the stay request. Applying the principles in prior HC decisions on discretionary stay and the requirement to assess "undue hardship," the court found the revenue's approach legally erroneous because s. 220(6) confers a discretion that must be exercised on relevant considerations, not a rigid deposit rule. The impugned order rejecting stay on the 20% premise was set aside and the matter remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with those principles. en-us Mon, 22 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Dec 2025 08:56:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784111 In considering a stay application under s. 220(6) of the Income-tax Act, the HC held that the AO cannot treat deposit of 20% of the outstanding demand as a mandatory precondition for entertaining or deciding the stay request. Applying the principles in prior HC decisions on discretionary stay and the requirement to assess "undue hardship," the court found the revenue's approach legally erroneous because s. 220(6) confers a discretion that must be exercised on relevant considerations, not a rigid deposit rule. The impugned order rejecting stay on the 20% premise was set aside and the matter remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with those principles. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 22 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784111