{"id":34348,"date":"2023-04-22T23:27:12","date_gmt":"2023-04-22T17:57:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/hindustan-lever-ltd-v-dcit-2022-197-itd-802-220-ttj-516-mum-trib\/"},"modified":"2023-07-18T19:53:55","modified_gmt":"2023-07-18T14:23:55","slug":"hindustan-lever-ltd-v-dcit-2022-197-itd-802-220-ttj-516-mum-trib","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/hindustan-lever-ltd-v-dcit-2022-197-itd-802-220-ttj-516-mum-trib\/","title":{"rendered":"Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 197 ITD 802 \/ 220 TTJ 516\/219 DTR 238     (Mum.)(Trib.)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Assessing Officer computed income tax liability and raised interest demand for relevant assessment year. Assessee filed application seeking blanket stay on collection\/recovery of same and claimed that he was not in a position to, nor he was required to make payment of any part of disputed tax demands. Held that\u00a0 first proviso to section 254(2A) specifically provides that Tribunal can only grant a stay subject to a deposit of not less than 20 per cent of disputed demand, or furnishing of security thereof, thus, powers of Tribunal under section 254(1), to grant a stay cannot be interpreted as to make first proviso to section 254(2A) redundant. Accordingly\u00a0 it could not be open to Tribunal to grant a blanket stay as same was contrary to scheme of law as visualised under first proviso to section 254(2A). Tribunal granted a \u00a0conditional stay by directing Assessing Officer to grant stay on collection\/recovery of demands, after reasonable security was provided by assessee. (AY. 2018-19)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal-Stay-Recovery-Tribunal can only grant a stay subject to a deposit of not less than 20 per cent of disputed demand, or furnishing of security thereof-Tribunal cannot grant blanket stay as per section 254(1) by making first proviso to section 254(2A) redundant. [S. 220(6), 254(1)] <\/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-34348","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-8W0","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34348","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=34348"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34348\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":35080,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34348\/revisions\/35080"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34348"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34348"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34348"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}