{"id":32746,"date":"2023-02-13T12:35:42","date_gmt":"2023-02-13T07:05:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/dr-b-l-kapur-memorial-hospital-v-cit-2023-bcaj-january-p-46-delhi-hc\/"},"modified":"2023-02-13T12:35:42","modified_gmt":"2023-02-13T07:05:42","slug":"dr-b-l-kapur-memorial-hospital-v-cit-2023-bcaj-january-p-46-delhi-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/dr-b-l-kapur-memorial-hospital-v-cit-2023-bcaj-january-p-46-delhi-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Dr. B.L.Kapur Memorial Hospital v .CIT ( 2023 ) BCAJ- January P. 46 ( Delhi)( HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The aassessee filed an application for stay of demand , when the appeal was pending before the CIT(A). Revenue rejected the application and directed to pay to the extent of 20% of the total tax demand arising under section 201(1) of the Act . The assessee filed the writ petition against rejection of stay application . The Court held that requirement of 20 percent of disputed tax demand is not a pre-requisite for putting in abeyance recovery of demand pending first appeal in all cases . The said pre -condition of deposit of 20 percent of the demand can be relaxed in appropriate cases . High Court referred\u00a0 PCIT v. LG Electronics India ( P) Ltd ( 2018)\u00a0 303 CTR 649 \/ 168 DTR 353 (SC) and set aside the order of recovery . Directed the Commissioner of income tax deal with all contention of the assessee and pass speaking order . ( WP (C) 16287 &amp; 16288 ( Delhi) ( HC) dt . 25 -11-2022) ( AY. 2013 -14 , 2014-15)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 201 : Deduction at source &#8211; Failure to deduct or pay \u2013 Stay of recovery \u2013 Pendency of appeal \u2013 Tax Authorities can grant stay against recovery  of demand on deposit of a lesser than 20 percent of the disputed demand . [S. 220 (6),  Art , 226 ] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-32746","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-8wa","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32746","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=32746"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32746\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":32747,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32746\/revisions\/32747"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32746"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32746"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32746"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}