Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1994 (10) TMI 45

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a mandamus directing respondent No. 1, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar, to dispose of an application for staying the recovery of the income-tax dues for the assessment year 1991-92 and also a direction staying the recovery proceedings till the disposal of the said stay application by respondent No. 1. Since the peti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s annexure "3" to the writ petition. The petitioner's grievance is that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has not yet disposed of the stay application and he be directed to do so by issuing a writ of mandamus and, in the meantime, this court may stay the recovery proceedings. Reliance is placed on a judgment of this court in Prem Prakash Tripathi v. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 461 in which this c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, by an order dated September 22, 1994, a copy of which is annexure '4' to the writ petition, the Assessing Officer declined to stay payment of the demand. He, therefore, contended that the petitioner's application dated August 12, 1994, was not maintainable before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) because, by that time, the petitioner's application under section 220(6) of the Act had not ....