https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784440 Where an assessee sought stay of recovery pending first appeal, the HC held that, absent any PCIT direction permitting recovery above 20% of the disputed demand, the AO was bound by CBDT instructions limiting recovery as a pre-condition for stay. Since the revenue had already recovered, by adjustment of refund, an amount exceeding 20% of the disputed penalty demand for AY 2021-22, the recovery was unlawful. The HC directed the revenue to retain only 20% of the disputed penalty and refund the balance to the assessee within four weeks of upload of the order. en-us Wed, 24 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jan 2026 08:04:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784440 Where an assessee sought stay of recovery pending first appeal, the HC held that, absent any PCIT direction permitting recovery above 20% of the disputed demand, the AO was bound by CBDT instructions limiting recovery as a pre-condition for stay. Since the revenue had already recovered, by adjustment of refund, an amount exceeding 20% of the disputed penalty demand for AY 2021-22, the recovery was unlawful. The HC directed the revenue to retain only 20% of the disputed penalty and refund the balance to the assessee within four weeks of upload of the order. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 24 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784440