https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95501 The dominant issue was whether recovery of outstanding tax demand should be stayed under s. 220(6) while the assessee's stay application remained pending. The court held that no mandatory stay could be directed because the assessee's appeal before the ITAT had not yet been restored and the assessee had itself proposed payment of the demand in installments, undermining the basis for compelling a stay; accordingly, stay was refused. The Revenue was directed to decide the assessee's pending stay application under s. 156 expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, without treating the order as any mandate to grant stay. - 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=95501 The dominant issue was whether recovery of outstanding tax demand should be stayed under s. 220(6) while the assessee's stay application remained pending. The court held that no mandatory stay could be directed because the assessee's appeal before the ITAT had not yet been restored and the assessee had itself proposed payment of the demand in installments, undermining the basis for compelling a stay; accordingly, stay was refused. The Revenue was directed to decide the assessee's pending stay application under s. 156 expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, without treating the order as any mandate to grant stay. - HC Highlights Income Tax Mon, 29 Dec 2025 08:56:35 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95501