https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95498 The dominant issue was whether a stay application under s. 220(6) could be rejected on the premise that it was not entertainable without a 20% pre-deposit of the outstanding demand. The court held that the assessing authority must exercise discretion under s. 220(6) on settled principles, including assessment of "undue hardship," and cannot treat a 20% deposit as a mandatory precondition for considering stay. Since the authority proceeded on an erroneous assumption of lack of power absent pre-deposit, the impugned rejection was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with the governing jurisprudence. - HC en-us Mon, 29 Dec 2025 08:56:35 +0530 Mon, 29 Dec 2025 08:56:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95498 The dominant issue was whether a stay application under s. 220(6) could be rejected on the premise that it was not entertainable without a 20% pre-deposit of the outstanding demand. The court held that the assessing authority must exercise discretion under s. 220(6) on settled principles, including assessment of "undue hardship," and cannot treat a 20% deposit as a mandatory precondition for considering stay. Since the authority proceeded on an erroneous assumption of lack of power absent pre-deposit, the impugned rejection was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with the governing jurisprudence. - HC Highlights Income Tax Mon, 29 Dec 2025 08:56:35 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95498