TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 620
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay application No. 104/Del/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11, on 10/3/2017 in SA No. 106/Del/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13 and on 22/12/2017 in SA No. 679/Del/2017. 2. It is an admitted fact that initially a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal considered the issue of grant of stay in SA No. 104/Del/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11 and by order dated 27/3/2015 granted interim stay on the condition of the assessee making the payment of Rs. 50 crores to the Revenue by 25/4/2015. Aggrieved by such conditional order, assessee carried the matter to the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) 3783/2015 and by order dated 20/4/2015 the Hon'ble High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and restored SA No. 104/Del/2015 to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been adjourned. He submitted that the delay in disposal of the appeal is not attributable to the conduct of the assessee and therefore, it is just and proper to extend the stay. 5. He further argued that the amendment introduced in section 254 (2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") by the finance act, 2020 as to the new condition of payment of 20% of demand or furnishing of equivalent security has no application to the facts of this case where the application is only for extension of the stay that has already been granted and has been in force. He submitted that in the light of the fact of Hon'ble High Court considering the issue in respect of the assessment year 2010-11 as against the order of the Tribunal clamping the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ended provision has no obligation to the facts of the case. According to the Ld. AR the extension of stay has the very similar effect to the grant of stay inasmuch as the realisation of the demand is stalled, and, therefore, the extension of stay is also governed by the amended provision under section 254 (2A) of the Act. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pepsi foods private limited vs. ACIT 376 ITR 87 (Delhi). 8. Ld. DR further submitted that the alleged Central action plan for the 1s t quarter issued by the CBDT to the field formations will cease to have effect by the end of June, 2020 and therefore same cannot be pressed into service for seeking extension of stay for a period of 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iew and thought it fit not to levy any condition of payment to grant the stay of demand. It has not been in dispute that except in respect of 2 or 3 issues, all the other grounds are covered in assessee's own case by orders of the Tribunal or higher fora, in favour of the assessee. 11. It could be seen from the order of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Mrs Steria (India) limited (supra) the Bench had taken cognizance of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court dated 23/3/2020 and 25/3/2020 respectively and also the subsequent order dated 15 may 2020 by the Hon'ble High Court, and observed that in view of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court any interim order issued and subsisting as on 16/3/202....