TATA STEEL LTD.,MUMBAI V. ACIT 2 (3)(2), MUMBAI

SA 42/MUM/2026

AI Insights

The case involves Tata Steel Limited, which filed stay applications seeking an extension on the recovery of outstanding demands for the Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2014-15. The applications were considered in the context of previously granted stays and the scheduling of related appeals. The counsel for Tata Steel argued that the appeals were delayed not due to any fault of the assessee but at the request of the department. The Departmental Representative opposed the stay. However, the Tribunal found no change in the circumstances that warranted a different decision from previous stays and thus granted the extension.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 842980 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2026
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVIN SALUNKHE
• Keywords: Application of stay; Extension of stay
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP AND SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM SA Nos. Arising out of ITA No. Assessment Year 40/Mum/2026 1819/Mum/2015 2010-11 41/Mum/2026 1966/Mum/2016 2011-12 39/Mum/2026 2463/Mum/2017 2012-13 42/Mum/2026 203/Mum/2019 2014-15 Tata Steel Limited 3rd Floor, Bombay House, 24 Homi Mody Street, For, Mumbai-400 001 Vs. Dy. CIT-2(3)(1) Mumbai PAN/GIR No. AAACT 2803 M (Applicant) : (Respondent) Applicant by : Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Respondent by : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026 O R D E R The captioned applications have been filed by the assessee seeking extension of stay on recovery of outstanding demands pertaining to Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2014-15. 2. Before us, ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee drew our attention to the last order, i.e., order dated 22.08.2025, whereunder the stay was extended for a period of 180 days or till the disposal of the corresponding appeals. She submitted that appeals for subject years along with appeal for the A.Y. 2008-09 were fixed together and appeal for A.Y. 2008-09, in the meanwhile, has been heard and order has been pronounced. Insofar, the other appeals Printed from counselvise.com 2 SA Nos. 39 to 42/Mum/2026 Tata Steel Ltd. are concerned, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that they were listed for hearing on 04.02.2026, but at the request of department, were adjourned to 23.04.2026. Thus, she submitted, there being no change in the factual position based on which stay was granted earlier, stay may be extended. 3. Learned Departmental Representative opposed grant of stay. 4. Having considered rival submissions, we find that while considering the initial stay applications filed by the assessee, ITAT had granted conditional stay, which were subsequently extended from time to time and the last order extending stay was passed on 22.08.2025. We are further of the view that the cause of non-disposal of the corresponding appeals is not attributable to the assessee. There being no change in the material facts, based on which stay was granted earlier and extended from time to time, we are inclined to extend the stay for a further period of 180 days from the date of this order or till the disposal of the corresponding appeals, whichever is earlier. 5. In the result, the stay applications are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 06.03.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Makarand V. Mahadeokar) (Saktijit Dey) Accountant Member Vice President Mumbai; Dated : 06.03.2026 Roshani, Sr. PS Printed from counselvise.com 3 SA Nos. 39 to 42/Mum/2026 Tata Steel Ltd. Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT - concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "