Does it ever make sense to stall for time? The game clock is used to prevent players from overly delaying the game (the keywords being "overly delaying the game"). Are there times in a timed game that stalling one's own development of the board makes sense, and if so, what would be the best example of this taking place?
In the bughouse variant a situation can definitely arise in which it makes sense to stall for time. If I'm facing checkmate next move on my board no matter what I do, then if my partner's opponent has less time on the clock than I do, I should just sit tight and hope that my partner can win on his board before my time runs out. (And if my partner's opponent has more time than I do in that situation, then he should just sit tight as well and force me to either accept mate or flag first.) But I realize you are actually asking about chess proper here, not bughouse.

I can't think of any scenario in which it makes objective sense, in terms of the game play, to stall for time, assuming you are talking about a situation in which: I already know what my next move is going to be (and have no intention of reviewing my decision any further), but I let my clock tick down instead of making my move immediately. But a player might have a psychological reason to stall at times.

In this interview (with accompanying videos in Russian) of grandmaster and noted commentator Sergey Shipov, conducted just recently during the ongoing world championship match, the topic arises as to the amount of time top players like Gelfand, Kramnik and Kasparov spend when making moves in positions that they've already analyzed during their home preparations. (See section "6. Kasparov puts on a show.") Shipov opines:


  For example, when, in Kazan, Gelfand thought for almost 40 minutes about one continuation in that game against Grischuk it later became clear that he’d looked at it all before. [17. Rd1 in game 6 of the candidates' final] ... he was considering some nuances, subtleties. He’d looked at the plan itself, but perhaps he was clarifying some of the concrete details. That depends greatly on the chess player. Kramnik won’t, for example, think for 20 minutes, never mind 40 minutes, about something he’s already looked at. He’ll play quickly. Kasparov, on the other hand, might do that. With Kasparov a position could be absolutely familiar to him but he’d think for 20 minutes, look at it, make various gestures, and it seemed to everyone that Kasparov was creating and coming up with something at the board. In actual fact, however, it was a one-man performance based around the creative process. (My emphasis)


Shipov doesn't indicate exactly what he thinks Kasparov's underlying motivation for this was supposed to be, but he is clearly suggesting that Kasparov wanted either his opponents or his spectators not to be sure when he was in his preparation and when he was extemporizing. So that's one possible answer.