AO passed and order under section 201(1)/201(1A) on account of failure on the part of Assessee to deduct TDS on interest payments to China Development Bank by relying upon Article 11(3) of India-China DTAA and subsequently, raised demand. The Assessee filed stay application and AO rejected the same after relying upon CBDT OM No. F No. 404/72/92/- ITCC, dated 29-2-2016 on the ground that stay could not be granted until 20 per cent of disputed demand was paid. Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed review application of assessee. On writ, the Court held that as the assessee had not suffered any operational losses, plea of hardship was not made out and therefore, the Court upheld the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the application and upheld the direction of AO directing assessee to deposit 20 per cent of total demand.   Applied GE Capital Mauritius Overseas Investments v. Dy. CIT [2021] 127 taxmann.com 235/433 ITR 270 (Delhi)(AY. 2016 17)