https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465602 The dominant issue was whether the ITAT had jurisdiction to grant a stay. The Tribunal held that a stay application is maintainable only to stay recovery of an outstanding tax demand; since no demand was outstanding and the disputed amount was stated as zero, no stay of demand could be granted. It further held that it lacks jurisdiction to stay the operation of an order passed by the CIT(E) cancelling registration under s. 12A(1)(ac)(i), as the Tribunal can only adjudicate the appeal and not suspend the impugned order's operation through a stay application. Consequently, the stay application was treated as infructuous and dismissed. en-us Thu, 24 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Jan 2026 07:07:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465602 The dominant issue was whether the ITAT had jurisdiction to grant a stay. The Tribunal held that a stay application is maintainable only to stay recovery of an outstanding tax demand; since no demand was outstanding and the disputed amount was stated as zero, no stay of demand could be granted. It further held that it lacks jurisdiction to stay the operation of an order passed by the CIT(E) cancelling registration under s. 12A(1)(ac)(i), as the Tribunal can only adjudicate the appeal and not suspend the impugned order's operation through a stay application. Consequently, the stay application was treated as infructuous and dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 24 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465602