<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (1) TMI 1654 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470139</link>
    <description>Extension of stay on recovery of disputed tax demand was considered where the appeal had not been delayed by the assessee. The notes identify prima facie support for challenges based on the absence of a document identification number and limitation. Revenue&#039;s interests were treated as adequately protected by attached fixed deposits exceeding the disputed demand. Recovery stay was extended for 180 days or until disposal of the appeal, whichever occurred earlier.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 19:02:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=912079" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 1654 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470139</link>
      <description>Extension of stay on recovery of disputed tax demand was considered where the appeal had not been delayed by the assessee. The notes identify prima facie support for challenges based on the absence of a document identification number and limitation. Revenue&#039;s interests were treated as adequately protected by attached fixed deposits exceeding the disputed demand. Recovery stay was extended for 180 days or until disposal of the appeal, whichever occurred earlier.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470139</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>