Income Tax

Revised guidelines for stay of demand at first appeal stage. Minimum deposit increased to 20%

Revised guidelines for stay of demand at first appeal stage. Minimum deposit amount for grant of stay increased to 20% of the disputed amount from existing 15%

F. No. 404/72/93-ITCC
(FTS:284146)
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department  of Revenue
Central Board ofDirect Taxes

New Delhi,  31st July, 2017

OFFICE  MEMORANDUM

Subject: Partial modification of Instruction No. 1914 dated 21.3.1996 to provide for guidelines for stay of demand at the first appeal stage.

Reference: Board’s O.M. of even number dated 29.2.2016

Instruction No. 1914 dated 21.3.1996 contains guidelines issued by the Board regarding procedure to be followed for recovery of outstanding demand, including procedure for grant of stay of demand.

Vide O.M. N0.404/72/93-ITCC dated 29.2.2016 revised guidelines were issued in partial modification of lnstruction No 1914, wherein. inter alia, vide para 4(A) it had been laid down that in a case where the outstanding demand is disputed before CIT(A), the Assessing Officer shall grant stay of demand till disposal of first appeal on payment of 15% of the disputed demand unless the case falls in the category discussed in para (B) thereunder.Similar references to the standard rate of 15% have also been made in succeedmg paragraphs therein.

2. The matter has been reviewed by the Board in the light of feedback received from field authorities. In view of the Board’s efforts to contain over pitched assessments through several measures resulting in fairer and more reasonable assessment orders, the standard rate of 15% of the disputed demand is found to be on the lower side. Accordingly. it bas been decided  that  the standard rate prescribed in O.M. dated 29.2.2016 be revised to 20% of the disputed demand, where the demand is contested before CIT(A). Thus all references to 15% of the disputed demand in the aforesaid O.M dated 29.2.2016 hereby stand modified to 20% of the disputed demand. Other guidelines contained in the O.M. dated 29.2.2016 shall remain unchanged.

These modifications may be immediately brought to the nottce of all officers working in your jurisdiction for proper compliance.

(A.K. Sinha)
Director (ITCC)
23092939

All Pr. Chief Commissioners/Pr. Directors General of Income Tax/Chief Commissioners/ Diredors General of Income Tax

Copy to:

  1. Chairman and all Members of CBDT.
  2. All Joint Secretaries and Commissioners in CBDT
  3. Pr. DGIT(Systems), Pr. DGIT(NADT) and Pr. DGIT(Admn.).
  4. Additional Directors General (Recovery) and (PR, P&P).
  5. Web Managers of irsofficersonline.gov.in and incometaxindia.gov.in for placing on the respective portals.
  6. Office of Comptroller & Auditor General of India (30 copies).
----------- Similar Posts: -----------
Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

No statutory requirement of pre-deposit for stay of demand under Income Tax Act – HC

There is no statutory requirement of pre-deposit for stay of demand under Income Tax Act - High Court stayed demand  …

7 hours ago
  • ICSI

Engagement of Company Secretaries as Young Professionals at RoC Mumbai and Pune

Engagement of Company Secretaries (CS) as Young Professionals in the Office of Regional Director (WR), Registrar of Companies, Mumbai and…

10 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Applicability of Section 115BBE rws 69, 69A 69C in a case before Settlement Commission

Applicability of provisions of Section 115BBE  read with Section 69, 69A and 69C in a case arising before Settlement Commission…

11 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Jewellery purportedly received from grandparent under Will added as unexplained credits

Addition u/s 68 for jewellery purportedly received on death of grandparent under Will upheld. In a recent judgment, ITAT upheld…

2 days ago
  • bankruptcy

SC lays down tests to determine if a debt is financial debt or operational under IBC

Supreme Court lays down tests to determine whether a debt is a financial debt or an operational debt under IBC…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Commonality of directors of companies does not mean deposits received was bogus

Merely because directors of two companies were common not mean that deposits received was bogus and companies were shell companies…

3 days ago