Where the Tribunal upheld addition of Rs. 200 crores to book profits under section 115JB on the ground that capital expenditure had been debited to the profit and loss account in a manner not permissible under the Companies Act, 2013, applicable accounting standards and guidance notes, the High Court, pending disposal of the appeal, held that the assessee was not entitled to unconditional stay of demand merely because it claimed a strong prima facie case. The Court observed that once the Tribunal had confirmed the demand, the normal rule would be deposit of the entire demand, though since a rectification application was pending and, if allowed, the tax liability could stand reduced, the interests of justice would be served by granting interim stay subject to deposit of Rs. 60 crores within four weeks. The Court also rejected the subsidiary’s request to substitute the deposit with a bank guarantee, holding that substantive modification of the order could not be sought through praecipes and that no case for further concession was made out. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP.