https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801975 CBDT recovery instructions did not require restoration of the earlier refund adjustment because no stay application had been filed before recovery exceeding 80% of the disputed demand, although the adjustment without a hearing was arbitrary. Restitution was also declined because more than three years had elapsed. The later refund adjustment, made while writ and stay proceedings were pending after substantial recovery, was unlawful. Tax authorities remain bound by applicable recovery instructions despite default status and must give the requisite Section 245 intimation before a further adjustment. The later adjusted amount was refundable with applicable interest, and the pending statutory appeal required expeditious disposal. en-us Tue, 13 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Oct 2026 06:33:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801975 CBDT recovery instructions did not require restoration of the earlier refund adjustment because no stay application had been filed before recovery exceeding 80% of the disputed demand, although the adjustment without a hearing was arbitrary. Restitution was also declined because more than three years had elapsed. The later refund adjustment, made while writ and stay proceedings were pending after substantial recovery, was unlawful. Tax authorities remain bound by applicable recovery instructions despite default status and must give the requisite Section 245 intimation before a further adjustment. The later adjusted amount was refundable with applicable interest, and the pending statutory appeal required expeditious disposal. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 13 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801975