This compilation indexes nine High Court rulings — spanning February 2019 to August 2025 — that engage Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The cases arise from writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, typically challenging orders that dismissed stay applications or imposed conditions (such as payment of 20% of the disputed demand) as a pre-condition for deciding an appeal. The compilation is intended for use by in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who require a structured, court-wise reference on the procedural contours of Section 220(6) litigation.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference drawn from publicly available judgments. It does not constitute legal advice, and nothing herein should be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal or tax counsel. Always verify against the full judgment text and check for subsequent stays, reversals, or appellate decisions.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides that where an assessee has presented an appeal under Chapter XX against an assessment order, he may apply to the Assessing Officer requesting that he be treated as not being in default in respect of the disputed amount pending disposal of the appeal. Upon receipt of such an application, the Assessing Officer may, in his discretion, and subject to such conditions as he may think fit to impose in the circumstances of the case, treat the assessee as not being in default. The section thus creates a statutory mechanism for stay of demand during the pendency of an appeal, and the exercise of discretion by the Assessing Officer — including the imposition of conditions such as payment of a percentage of the disputed tax demand — has been the subject of recurring writ jurisdiction challenges before various High Courts.

The 9 rulings

1. Retnaraj Joanitta vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 11 August 2025
Sections engaged: 220(6), 246A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed as a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court (W.P.(MD) No. 21870 of 2025). The petitioner sought to call for and quash orders dated 18.06.2025 and 07.07.2025 passed by the Income Tax Officer, and further sought a direction that the first respondent decide the petitioner's appeal filed against the assessment order dated 14.05.2025 without insisting upon the payment of 20% of the demand amount as a pre-condition for deciding the appeal.

2. Shree Nagalingeshwar Urban Credit vs The Assessment Unit

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 30 May 2024
Sections engaged: 139(1), 143(2), 143(3), 156, 220(6), 80
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 108004 of 2023) was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, praying to issue a writ of certiorari and quash the impugned order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli, bearing DIN No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1052028045(1) dated 12-04-2023 for Assessment Year 2020-21. The matter came up for preliminary hearing in the 'B' Group before the court per the source preview.

3. National Association Of Software And vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 1 March 2024
Sections engaged: 220(6), 154
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petitioner (NASSCOM) approached the Delhi High Court aggrieved by the adjustment of a disputed tax demand pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19 against refunds due to it for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2020-21. The challenge was principally raised in the backdrop of the adjustment having been made despite the petitioner having moved a rectification application pertaining to the final assessment framed for AY 2018-19, and an admitted failure on the part of the respondents to consider and dispose of the stay application referable to Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

4. Sukumar Dhanapal vs Income Tax Officer

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 25 July 2023
Sections engaged: 220(6), 148
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P. No. 34008 of 2022) was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court, calling for and seeking to quash the impugned order in ITBA/RCV/F/17/2022-23/1047416584(1) dated 16.11.2022 for Assessment Year 2015-16 in respect of PAN ATNPD5850F, on grounds that it was illegal, arbitrary, and against the principles of natural justice. The petitioner consequently sought a direction to grant stay of recovery of demand for Assessment Year 2015-16 pending disposal of the appeal preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

5. S.Gunvanth Raj vs The

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 21 February 2022
Sections engaged: 221(1), 220(6)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P. No. 3102 of 2022) was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court, praying for a writ of certiorari to call for and quash records of penalty proceedings in PAN No. AAFPK9519F in DIN & Notice No. ITBA/RCV/S/221/2021-22/1037345342(1) dated 29.11.2021 in respect of assessment year 2013-14, on the ground that the proceedings were initiated without jurisdiction and against the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The prayer challenged the initiation of the penalty proceedings as being jurisdictionally infirm per the source preview.

6. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 26 August 2021
Sections engaged: 143(3), 144C, 220(6), 245, 254, 92C
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The Special Civil Application (R/SCA No. 12637 of 2019) was decided as a CAV judgment by the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad. Per the source preview, a final assessment order was passed on 23.01.2017 raising a demand of Rs. 2004.99 crores, against which Rs. 360.56 crores in tax demand was paid on 20.07.2017, and a refund pertaining to AY 2014-15 of Rs. 224.44 crores was adjusted on 12.07.2019; the petition engaged multiple provisions including Section 220(6) in the context of this demand-and-adjustment sequence.

7. M/S.Queen Agencies vs The Assistant Commissioner Of

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 8 April 2021
Sections engaged: 220(6), 143(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP(MD) No. 5550 of 2020) was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, seeking a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the impugned demand notice in PAN AAAFQ1319G in DIN & Letter No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2019-20/1024797229(1) dated 06.02.2020. Per the source preview, the petitioner — a partnership firm and major distributor of ITC products in Ramanathapuram District — had been subjected to a survey under the Income Tax Act on 05.12.2017, following which assessments for assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17 were sought to be framed.

8. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Mandir vs The Assistant Commissioner Of

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 6 March 2019
Sections engaged: 220(6), 153A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (Writ Petition No. 5923 of 2019) was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court, praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the order of the first respondent dated 13.02.2019 in F.No.AADTS6092D/HSR/2018-19 for assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18. Per the source preview, the impugned order dated 13.02.2019 was passed under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and called upon the petitioner trust to remit 20% of the disputed demand of income tax as a pre-condition.

9. Mrs.Kannammal vs Income Tax Officer

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 13 February 2019
Sections engaged: 220(6)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P. No. 3849 of 2019) was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court and was taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission by consent of both learned counsels. The challenge was to an order dated 25.01.2019 passed by the respondent Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Tirupur, dismissing the application for stay filed by the petitioner on 19.01.2019 and calling upon her to pay the disputed demand immediately; the petitioner had suffered an order of income tax assessment dated 24.12.2018 in relation to assessment year 2016-17.

Patterns across these 9 rulings

Writ jurisdiction as the primary remedy. Across all nine cases, assessees invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India before High Courts to challenge orders passed under Section 220(6) or to compel the tax authority to decide stay applications — signalling that writ jurisdiction remains the principal recourse where the statutory mechanism under Section 220(6) is alleged to have been exercised improperly or not exercised at all.
The 20% pre-deposit condition as a recurring flashpoint. Multiple cases (including Case 1 — Retnaraj Joanitta, and Case 8 — Uthangarai Sri Vidya Mandir) specifically challenge the insistence on payment of 20% of the disputed demand as a pre-condition for deciding the appeal or for treating the assessee as not in default. This recurring challenge suggests that the quantification and mandatory nature of this condition is a persistent area of dispute.
Failure to consider the stay application. Case 3 (NASSCOM vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax) highlights an admitted failure on the part of the respondents to consider and dispose of the stay application referable to Section 220(6), with the further complication that the disputed demand was adjusted against refunds in the interim. This pattern — of adjustments being effected before the stay application is heard — reflects a procedurally significant concern across the dataset.
Multi-year and multi-assessment-year demands. Several petitions involve disputes spanning multiple assessment years (Case 8 covers seven assessment years from 2011-12 to 2017-18; Case 7 involves assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17), indicating that Section 220(6) applications frequently arise in the context of aggregated or block demands rather than single-year assessments.
Geographic concentration in the Madras High Court. Six of the nine rulings originate from the Madras High Court (including its Madurai Bench), with one each from the Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench), the Delhi High Court, and the Gujarat High Court. This geographic distribution may reflect both litigation intensity in Tamil Nadu and the Madras High Court's active writ jurisdiction in tax recovery matters.

How to use this compilation

This index is designed as a first-pass reference tool. For each case listed, researchers should retrieve the full judgment text from the source court portal (Madras High Court: mhc.tn.gov.in/judis; Delhi High Court: dhcappl.nic.in; Karnataka High Court: judgments.karnataka.gov.in; Gujarat High Court: gujarathighcourt.nic.in) or from indiankanoon.org before drawing any conclusions about the court's reasoning or the operative directions. The text previews reproduced here are truncated and do not capture the full dispositif or reasoning of each judgment.

Researchers should also check whether any of these orders have been subsequently stayed, reversed, or affirmed in appellate proceedings. In the context of Section 220(6) writ matters, it is common for interim reliefs granted at the admission stage to be vacated or modified at the final hearing stage, and the citation record on indiankanoon.org or SCC Online should be checked for subsequent orders in the same writ petition number. Additionally, CBDT Instructions — including Instruction No. 1914 and subsequent office memoranda on stay of demand — set the administrative framework within which Assessing Officers exercise discretion under Section 220(6), and these should be read alongside the judicial rulings indexed here.

When using this compilation for matter-specific research, cross-reference the sections engaged in each case against the sections engaged in your matter. Cases sharing the same companion sections (for example, Section 153A in Case 8, or Section 154 in Case 3) may provide more directly analogous procedural context than cases where Section 220(6) arises in a different statutory combination.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 220(6) Stay of Demand: 9 High Court Rulings (2019–2025)