On writ against the interim order of the stay by the Tribunal, the Court held that the orders passed by the Tribunal in respect of the earlier years would not assist the assessee, firstly for the reason since for the assessment year 2011-12 when the percentage of transactions in respect of which the put or call option was exercised was 2.34 per cent. of the total holding in respect of which an assessment order was passed applying the provisions of section 92C and an amount of Rs. 50 crores was directed to be deposited at the interim stage for stay of the assessment order. For the assessment year 2012-13, the proceedings were pending before the court and the assessee was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 100 crores. Both such orders were accepted by the assessee and the amount was deposited, without any grievance. That the proceedings in the miscellaneous application were concerned with the interim order passed by the Tribunal on the stay application by the assessee which was a discretionary order and the discretion had not been exercised by the Tribunal perversely or illegally. Although the order in so far as it directed the assessee to deposit an amount of Rs. 230 crores, being the lowest or minimum amount of 20 per cent. of the disputed tax demand, was in consonance with the provisions of section 254(2A), the Tribunal ought not to have directed the assessee to furnish a corporate guarantee from an associate company which had unencumbered assets in India in excess of the balance of the disputed demands, i. e., Rs. 900 crores, particularly considering the interim orders passed for the prior years. Such condition, therefore, was substituted by directing the assessee to furnish a corporate guarantee of its parent company as accepted by the Revenue in the assessment year 2008-09.  That the contention that the recovery being in the nature of a protective recovery, it was not permissible for the Tribunal to pass the order in question considering the decisions of the order passed for the assessment year 2008-09 as substantive year could not be accepted though it was factually correct since the events for taxation in the subsequent period were different, as it pertained to 6.01 per cent. of the holding in respect of call and put options being actually exercised. If such contention was accepted, then orders that had been accepted by the assessee in depositing the demands for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, which were Rs. 50 crores and Rs. 100 crores, respectively, could not have been passed. On the facts considering as to what had transpired for the earlier assessment years 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13, the contention that the assessment for the assessment year 2014-15 being a high-pitched assessment such demand would warrant a blanket stay could not be accepted. Except for the modification in respect of condition No. (ii) as imposed by the Tribunal, the order was not interfered with otherwise. (AY. 2014-15)