Co-Accused Can Apply Separately For Compounding Of Offences Committed By Company Or HUF Under Income Tax Act: Delhi High CourtCase title: Sumit Bharana v. UoICase no.: W.P.(C) 16701/2024The Delhi High Court has held that co-accused are entitled to apply separately for compounding of offences committed by a Company or a Hindu Undivided Family under the Income Tax Act, 1961.A division bench...
Case title: Sumit Bharana v. UoI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16701/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that co-accused are entitled to apply separately for compounding of offences committed by a Company or a Hindu Undivided Family under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ruled that the co-accused need not await filing of application for compounding by the company or the HUF.
Case title: S A N Garments Manufacturing Private Limited v. Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax 7 And Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 932/2024
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a designated authority under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 cannot reopen an assessment after a final certificate is issued under Section 5 of the Act and all disputes with regard to the 'tax arrear' stand concluded.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “once a declarant is issued a certificate (Form No.5) in terms of Section 5 of the DTVSV Act, and the declarant deposits the determined amount, the Designated Authority is proscribed from initiating any action or proceedings in respect of 'tax arrear'. The dispute stands settled.”
Case title: The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - Central -1 v. Capital Power Systems Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 501/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 150 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be invoked for reassessment only to give effect to a 'conclusive finding' by an appellate authority regarding escapement of income by an assessee.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that invocation of the provision requires a “strict and cautious application” of the terms 'findings' and 'direction' to prevent the reopening of assessments based on findings or directions that are only incidental, tangential, or beyond statutory authority.
Case title: ATS Township Pvt Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 1(1) Delhi & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13790/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that the provision under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessing officer of a searched person to record 'satisfaction' and handover documents regarding undisclosed income of another person cannot be substituted by merely uploading such information on the Department's insight portal.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “Uploading of information by the investigation wing of the Income Tax department would not be a substitute for recording of a satisfaction note by the AO of a searched person and handing over the assets, books of accounts or other material to the AO of the person other than the searched person for the purpose of initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Act.”
Case title: Abhishek Bansal v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 58(3), Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17300/2024
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that merely producing transaction documents to establish that payments were made to an entity is not sufficient to defend the allegations of accommodation entries.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “The documents provided by the petitioner would establish that the payments had been made to Shri Ajay Gupta through banking channels. However, the same does not address the allegation of purchases reflected were accommodation entries…In the present case, the petitioner was required to clearly show the movement of goods to establish that the goods had in fact moved from Shri Ajay Gupta to the petitioner. However, it does not appear that any such information was provided by the petitioner to the AO.”
Case title: Late Sh. Lal Chand Verma Through His Legal Heir v. Union Of India & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 8184/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 159 of the Income Tax Act can be invoked to proceed against the legal representative of an assessee, only in cases where the reassessment notice was issued to the assessee during his lifetime, not after.
Division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma noted that “Section 159 of the Act is applicable when proceedings are initiated and pending against an assessee during their lifetime, and the legal representative assumes responsibility after the assessee's death. This was not the factual scenario in the present case; therefore, Section 159 of the Act is not applicable here.”
Case title: Gautam Thadani v. Director Income Tax (Investigation) And Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10960/2016
The Delhi High Court has held that the delay in issuing requisition under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be condoned if the same is explained by the Authority concerned.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “...there has been some delay in issuance of the impugned requisition, however, the Income Tax Department has explained that the said delay was on account of investigations conducted by it. In the given circumstances, we are unable to accept that the impugned requisition is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay. ”
Case title: Sonansh Creations Pvt Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12316/2022
The Delhi High Court has turned down the contention that an Assessing Officer, at the stage of passing an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for initiation of reassessment proceedings, is not required to form any opinion as to the genuineness or veracity of the information available against an assessee.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “As is clear from the plain language of Section 148A(d) of the Act, the AO has to decide whether it is a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. This decision would require the AO to take a view in respect of the material available and form an opinion whether there are grounds to believe that the assessee's income has escaped assessment.”
Case title: Sonansh Creations Pvt Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12316/2022
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that merely because notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is issued in the name of an amalgamating company which had ceased to exist, subsequent notice issued under Section 148A(d) in the name of merged entity cannot be declared invalid.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held, “The nature of proceedings under Section 148A of the Act is to enable the AO to form an opinion whether it is a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Given the nature of the proceedings under Section 148A of the Act, we are unable to accept that issuance of a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act in the name of an entity, which had since amalgamated with the petitioner, would be fatal to the AO assuming jurisdiction by issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act in the name of the petitioner.”
Case title: Sonansh Creations Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) No.17570/2022
The Delhi High Court has held that an Assessing Officer is required to be satisfied that accommodation entries as alleged in show cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 exist, particularly where the assessee produces its accounts.
In doing so, a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma heavily relied on its recent ruling in Sonansh Creations Pvt Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr. where it was held that to initiate reassessment proceedings under the Act, the AO must conduct an enquiry with respect to the information that suggests escapement of income, to ascertain its correctness.
Case title: Rohit Kumar v. Income Tax Officer Ward 54 (1), Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2830/2022
The Delhi High Court observed that absence of a formal notice under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not fatal to reassessment proceedings initiated in the twilight zone when the inquiry provisions were introduced by the Finance Act, 2021.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma noted that the Department had provided an opportunity to the petitioner-assessee to question the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148, which was the “underlying principle” of Section 148A.
Case title: Rohit Kumar v. Income Tax Officer Ward 54 (1), Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2830/2022
The Delhi High Court has held that the benchmark of minimum Rs. 50 lakh income escapement prescribed under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 must be met at the very initiation of reassessment proceedings.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma observed, “Additions ultimately made in the course of reassessment would not validate the initiation of proceedings if founded on income of INR 46,17,000/- having escaped assessment and thus evidently below the threshold of INR 50 lakhs.”
Case title: The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 1029/2018
The Delhi High Court has held that Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd (SIEL), a wholly owned subsidiary of South Korea-based Samsung Electronics Co. is not its 'Permanent Establishment' (PE) in India, hence not exigible to tax here.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar agreed with ITAT's findings that the secondment of employees by Samsung Korea was merely with the objective of facilitating the activities of SIEL, not its own.
Case title: Divine Infracon Pvt Ltd v. Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax 3
Case no.: ITA 426/2024
The Delhi High Court recently said aside an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, deciding grounds that did not arise from the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “The Assessee's challenge to the addition of ₹4,30,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act had remained unaddressed by the learned CIT(A) but had been affirmed by the learned ITAT, without the same arising from the order passed by the learned CIT(A). The learned ITAT has clearly erred in entering into the said controversy without the learned CIT(A) rendering any finding on merits in regard to the petitioner's appeal.”
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 9 v. M/S Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S North Delhi Power Limited)
Case no.: ITA 687/2019
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would be inapplicable to an electricity generation company.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma thus dismissed the Department's appeals against Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited, a joint venture of Tata Power with the Delhi government for purposes of power generation and distribution of electricity in two districts of Delhi.
Case title: Rohit Kumar v. Income Tax Officer Ward 54 (1), Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2830/2022
The Delhi High Court has held that the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) did not affirm the authority of a Joint Commissioner to grant approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for initiation of reassessment proceedings.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma observed that the Supreme Court in the Rajeev Bansal case “merely alluded to the time frames within which approval under Section 151 of the could be sought for and obtained.”
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. Delhi Vedanta Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 88/2022
The Delhi High Court on Friday declined the Income Tax Department's appeal to treat as 'curable', the error committed in naming the relevant entity while issuing reassessment notices. A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma refused to grant the benefit which the Supreme Court had given to the Department in Sky Light Hospitality LLP v. Assistant commissioner of Income-tax (2018).
It observed, “It was the conduct of the assessee in Sky Light which had convinced the Supreme Court to observe that the mistake would not render the order of assessment invalid and that it could be saved under Section 292B of the. The facts of the present case are clearly not akin to what prevailed in Sky Light.”
Case title: Grid Solutions OY (Ltd) v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 1196/2022
The Delhi High Court has held that whether an entity is a Permanent Establishment (PE) of a foreign company or not is a “fact-specific” issue which must be examined separately for different tax periods.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “The position of a PE being a facts-specific issue and thus liable to be examined against the backdrop of what obtained in a particular tax period…”
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, New Delhi v. DCM Shriram Ltd.
Case no: ITA 566/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that the rate at which power is supplied by the State Electricity Board (SEB) or the Power Distribution Companies is an appropriate metric for determining market price of electricity.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma further held that rate at which electricity is sold on the Indian Energy Exchange (IEX) platform is not a 'comparable' and should not be considered to determine market value of the power supplied by the Assessee to its industrial units.
Case title: Abhinav Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 52
Case no.: W.P.(C) 7405/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that if the Revenue issues a reassessment notice to an assessee under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without following due procedure, it cannot later issue fresh reassessment notice beyond the prescribed period, claiming that time spent on earlier litigation is to be excluded for the purposes of computing limitation.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “Notice issued under Section 148 of the Act in the earlier round was set aside on the ground that the AO had not followed the mandatory requirement of seeking an approval from the competent authority…The fact that the Revenue had not taken the steps in accordance with law cannot possibly be construed as a factor in favour of the Revenue for extending the limitation.”
Case title: Smt. Shivani Madan v. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-01 & Anr.
Case no.: ITA 573/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that where a property is held jointly but only one co-owner reaps the benefit of income from such property, the other co-owner cannot be held liable to pay tax merely by virtue of co-ownership.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “the [Income Tax] Act fails to raise any presumption in law, of income necessarily arising or being liable to be assessed in the hands of an individual merely because it be a signatory to an instrument of conveyance. In our considered opinion, the question of taxability would necessarily have to be answered bearing in mind the individual who had in fact obtained benefits from the property.”
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -21 v. M/S.Remfry & Sagar
Case no.: ITA 199/2017
The Delhi High Court has held that the fees paid by IPR law firm Remfry & Sagar to acquire the goodwill vested in a company run by the family members of its deceased founder, is a business expense deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja observed, “the primary, nay, sole purpose for incurring expenditure towards license fee was to use the words “Remfry & Sagar” and derive benefit of the goodwill attached to it. The appellant do not dispute that Dr. Sagar had validly acquired the goodwill and that the same constituted a valuable asset which was transferable.”
Case title: Property Plus Realtors v. Union Of India & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17371/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that the date of the assessment order, wherein an Assessing Officer recommended separate penalty proceedings against the assessee under Section 271DA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for accepting more than ₹2 lakh in cash, is not relevant for determining the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c).
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said a plain reading of Section 275(1)(c) indicates that the time limit for completion of the action for imposition of penalty is to be reckoned from: (a) the end of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated are completed; or (b) six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever expires later.
Case title: M/S SMEC India (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9969/2019
The Delhi High Court has held that an application for revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be preferred by an assessee who makes suo motu disallowance in its Return of Income (RoI/ ITR), under a bonafide yet mistaken belief that the same was liable to be offered for taxation.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar added that the assessee cannot be denied relief merely on the ground that the application was moved without amending the RoI.
Case title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 v. Adobe Systems Software Ireland Ltd
Case no.: ITA 474/2023
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to the effect that Adobe Systems India Pvt. Ltd is not a dependent agent permanent establishment (DAPE) of Adobe Systems Software Ireland Ltd.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar affirmed that no further attribution of profit can be made as Adobe India was remunerated at arm's length.
Case title: Kanwaljeet Kaur v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle (34) 1 Delhi & Ors. and batch
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3908/2023
The Delhi High Court has interpreted the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal to elucidate the time period surviving under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for issuing reassessment notices.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar concluded that the period between 20 March 2020 to 30 June 2021 would be excluded from limitation, in view of Section 3(1) of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.
Further, the period between the date of issuance of the impugned reassessment notices (if falling between 20 March 2020 to 30 June 2021) up to the date of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal case (04 May 2022), would also be excluded, in light of third proviso to Section 149(1). The bench added that the third period which is liable to be excluded is the time for furnishing objections by the assessee.
Case title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 v. Standard Chartered Grindlays Ltd
Case no.: ITA 388/2019
The Delhi High Court has held that the limit prescribed under Section 36(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act 1961, on deductions that an employer can seek for contributions made towards superannuation funds, applies only at the stage of setting up the fund or making ordinary annual payments.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said any contribution made additionally in discharge of an overarching obligation would not be rendered as a disallowable expense.
Case title: Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer And Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16232/2024
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, which prescribes a limitation period for initiating reassessment against an assessee, is not an enabling provision but rather a proscription on the Assessing Officer's powers.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “The opening sentence of Section 149(1) of the Act clearly indicates that the time limit as prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act is a hard stop. Therefore, the procedure that is required to be completed for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is required to be completed prior to the expiry of the time limit as prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act. Such time limit cannot be breached…There is no ambiguity in this regard given the construct of Section 149(1) of the Act, which is not in the nature of enabling provision but a provision that proscribes an action.”
Case title: Aon Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (Successor Entity Of Aon Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1 And Ors.
Case no.: ITA 244/2024
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a dispute with respect to arm's length price in a transfer pricing can be resolved under Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) only by consent and negotiations between contracting parties.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that such a resolution cannot be imposed in a contested case, where there is no consensus.
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 v. M/S Chemester Food Industries Pvt. Ltd
Case no.: ITA 113/2024
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that only such High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer passing an impugned assessment order is situated would have the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tushar Rao Gedela agreed with the assessee, stating that since the appeal before it emanates from an assessment order issued by the AO in Amritsar, it does not have territorial jurisdiction.
Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 472/2018
The Delhi High Court has held that a Transfer Pricing Officer cannot compute the arm's length price of an assessee's international transactions as nil, merely because despite the services availed from such transactions, the assessee incurred a loss in business.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the TPO cannot weigh the ALP on the basis of financial benefits or commercial expediency of the transactions in question.
Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 472/2018
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the role of a Transfer Pricing Officer is to conduct a transfer pricing analysis and determine the arm's length price of an assessee's international transaction and the TPO cannot act as an Assessing Officer to probe the legitimacy of such transactions.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “It is necessary to bear in mind that there is a distinction between the functions of a TPO and an AO. The TPO is required to conduct a transfer pricing analysis to determine the ALP. It is not the TPO's function to determine whether, in fact, there is any service from which the Assessee derived any benefit. The question whether any expenditure has been incurred by the Assessee for earning revenue is a matter, which is required to be determined by the AO.”
The Delhi High Court has held that Fee for Technical Services (FTS) as contained under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is concerned with the transfer of 'distinctive', 'specialized' knowledge, skill, expertise and know-how by a service provider.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar thus observed that assistance provided by the assessee-respondent with respect to rules and regulations for clearance of customs frontiers is not 'specialised knowledge' to make the service 'FTS'.
Case title: Vivo Mobile India Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 1662/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that after the closure of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer becomes 'functus officio' and to re-confer jurisdiction upon the AO to initiate re-assessment proceedings, relevant incriminating material ought to be put to the assessee.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made the observation while dealing with a writ petition filed by Vivo Mobiles, assailing the reassessment proceedings initiated against it under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case title: Tilak Raj Singh v. Union Of India And Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 772/2018
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that in terms of the Central Civil Services (Leave Travel Concession) Rules, 1988 an employee cannot change travel destination midway through the journey and if due to some unavoidable circumstance it has been changed, the same has to be a destination which is en route.
In the case at hand, LTC was originally sought for travel to Trivandrum, which was subsequently changed to Goa, via Mumbai. However, the petitioner decided midway to change his destination to certain hill stations in Uttarakhand.
Case title: SFDC Ireland Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Another
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12847/2024
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that before rejecting an assessee's application under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for nil TDS or deduction of tax at a lower rate, the assessing officer must form a prima facie opinion regarding the assessee's taxability in India.
Section 197(1) of the Act enables an assessee to make an application for a certificate requiring the deduction of tax at a lower rate or no deduction at all if the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the total income of the recipient justifies such nil deduction or deduction at a lower rate.
Case title: Maruti Suzuki India Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9786/2016
The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment action initiated by the Income Tax Department against car manufacturer Maruti Suzuki India Ltd for alleged escapement of income in the Assessment Year 2009-10.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja observed that the company had made full and true disclosure of all facts in the course of the assessment and the Department did not have jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case title: Ateesh Agarwal v. Union Of India And Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2139/2025
The Delhi High Court has rejected the writ petition filed by a man, seeking an inquiry into the finances of his wife and her family who claimed to have paid him ₹2 crores dowry, in addition to spending crores of rupees on their wedding.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the complaint stemmed from a matrimonial feud and the man was unable to indicate the provision under which such a complaint was made to the Income Tax department.
CBDT Cannot Impose Limitations To Extinguish Rights Granted Under Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 8444/2018
Recently, the Delhi High Court held that Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) cannot impose limitations to extinguish rights granted under Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court held that the wide powers granted to the CBDT are not for extinguishing a right that is conferred by the Act. Accordingly, the Court Circular No. 07/2007 dated 23 October 2007 issued by the CBDT to the be ultra vires the Income Tax Act.
Case title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -2 v. Nokia Network OY
Case no.: ITA 785/2019
The Delhi High Court has held that a subsidiary or an entity which is substantially controlled by another entity in a contracting State does not by itself become a Permanent Establishment (PE) of that other entity.
Citing Article 5 of the India-Finland Double Taxation Treaty, a division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja observed, “There is no general presumption in law that a subsidiary can never be acknowledged to be a PE. This since Article 5(8) itself merely states that the said factor alone shall not be determinative of the PE question. The covenant thus clearly obliges us to evaluate the facts based on the other provisions comprised in Article 5 of the DTAA.”
Case title: M/S Legacy Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, & Anr.
Case no.: ITA 45/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which contemplates tax incentives for enterprises operating in specific industries and locations in India, does not require such enterprises to enter into an agreement with the Government.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar distinguished the provision from Section 80IA, whereunder agreement with the Centre, State or local authority is a pre-condition for claiming deductions.
Case title: Monish Gajapati Raju Pusapati v. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2043/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be used to save an assessment order passed by overlooking errors apparent on face of the record. The provision provides that no notice or assessment or any proceedings can be deemed to be invalid merely for the reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such notice, assessment or other proceedings.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devender Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said while the provision would save reassessment notice which inadvertently furnished to assessee information relating to some other individual instead of his own however, the subsequent reassessment order passed by overlooking such mistake cannot be condoned.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)- 3 v. M/S Ridgeview Construction Pvt. Ltd
Case no.: ITA 618/2019
The Delhi High Court has held that even though Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 did not in its original form prescribe two-tier satisfaction of Assessing Officers of both the searched and non-searched entity for initiating reassessment, the same cannot be deemed absent.
“In our considered opinion, while and undoubtedly Section 153C as it stood at the relevant time did not contemplate a two tier recordal of satisfaction and the AO of the searched person was merely obliged to transmit the material belonging or pertaining to a third person gathered in the course of a search, proceedings under the said provision could not have been triggered mechanically absent the formation of opinion by the AO of the non-searched person that the material was likely to impact an assessment made,” a division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed.
Case title: Suparshva Swabs (I) v. National Faceless Appeal Centre & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 356/2025
The Delhi High Court has expressed grave concern over the pendency of over 5.4 Lakh appeals before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The body was created for faceless assessment under Section 143 or 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the insertion of Section 144B via the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela remarked, “This court is cognizant of the large number of statutory appeals pending for disposal before the NFAC and express concern over the delay in disposal of such appeals, for which the NFAC was envisaged.”
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. Nagar Dairy Pvt. Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 320/2023 and batch
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which pertains to appeals to High Courts, does not envisage the filing of cross-objections by the opposite party, unlike Order XLI Rule 22 CPC.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “The Legislature appears to have consciously desisted from adopting principles akin to Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code or specifically introducing provisions enabling the respondent in an appeal under Section 260A to prefer cross-objections.”
Case title: GE Grid (Switzerland) GMBH v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 1294/2022
The Delhi High Court has held that the existence of a foreign entity's Permanent Establishment (PE) in India is required to be determined in law for each year separately on the basis of the scope, extent, nature and duration of activities in each year.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja made the observation while dealing with a Swiss company's case, which was aggrieved by various reassessment notices issued for AYs 2013-18 for alleged escapement of income generated by its alleged PE, namely, GE T&D India Ltd.
Case title: Fasttrack Tieup Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15237/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that the Income Tax Department cannot, suspecting escapement of tax on income by an assessee, indefinitely attach its properties without taking further steps to resolve the matter.
Single judge Justice Sachin Datta observed that Section 222 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which empowers the Tax Recovery Officer to proceed with “attachment and sale of assessee's movable property” to recover the due taxes, explicitly states “attachment and sale,” signifying a sequential process where the property, once attached, must subsequently be sold to recover the arrears.
Case title: PCIT-1, New Delhi v. Beam Global Spirits & Wine (India) Pvt.Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 155/2022
The Delhi High Court has held that before the Income Tax Department commences transfer pricing benchmarking analysis of an assessee's international transactions, the very existence of such 'international transaction' must be determined.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, while dealing with the case of an Indian entity producing liquor for brands like Jim Beam, observed, “the commencement of a benchmarking analysis would have to necessarily be preceded by the Revenue identifying the existence of a transaction as defined and which undoubtedly constitutes a sine qua non. This clearly flows from the plain text of Section 92B(1), which proceeds to define an “international transaction” as being a “transaction” between two or more AEs.”
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. WGF Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 184/2022
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that allowance in respect of bad debts as an expense under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is permissible only if: (a) the debt was taken into account for computing the income of the assessee in the previous year in which the amount is written off or prior previous years; or (b) represents money lent in the ordinary course of business of banking or money lending.
Case title: Cargill India Private Limited v. Central Board Of Direct Taxes.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 399/2022
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the power of the Central government to relax conditions prescribed under Rule 9C of the Income Tax Rules 1962, read with Section 72A of the Income Tax Act, 1962, is exceptional, discretionary and cannot ordinarily be subject to judicial review.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the power to relax a Rule or a condition is by way of an exception, and the scope of such power cannot be construed in an expansive manner.
Case title: Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case no.: ITA 660/2018
The Delhi High Court has allowed Vodafone Mobile, engaged in providing telecommunication services, to claim depreciation of ₹5.10 crores in respect of fixed assets over provisioned expenditure to discharge its contractual obligation of restoring mobile tower sites to their original condition at the end of the lease period.
Though Asset reconstruction Cost (ARC) was laid out by Vodafone, the Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim, stating that the same is not 'ascertained liability'.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Delhi v. D Light Energy P. Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 53/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that where the distributor of an imported product makes no value addition to it before sale, Resale Price Method is the most appropriate method to determine the arm's length price in relation to its business with an Associated Enterprise.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela thus dismissed the appeal preferred by Revenue against a Solar products distributor, which imported goods from an Associated Enterprise (AE) for resale.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S East Delhi Leasing Pvt. Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 61/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the principle of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' cannot be made applicable to Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which enables an assessing officer to open an assessment if he has 'reason to believe' that an assessee's income escaped assessment.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “It is trite that the concept of “proving beyond reasonable doubt” applies “strictu senso” to penal provisions/statutes. It is also trite that in taxing statutes, in particular, section 148 of the Act, the “reason to believe”, must be based on objective materials, and on a reasonable view.”
Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Indian Broadcasting Foundation
Case no.: ITA 469/2023
In an order bringing relief to the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), which was incorporated to protect the interests of various stakeholders in the field of television broadcasting, the Delhi High Court allowed the body to claim exemption from payment of tax under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “BARC, being a company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, is legally prohibited from distributing any dividends or profits to its shareholders. Additionally, in the event of liquidation, Memorandum of Association of BARC mandates that any surplus must be transferred to another company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act with similar objectives, thereby negating any possibility of personal gain or profit for the Assessee from its deployment of funds.”
Case title: Huawei Telecommunications India Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 2 & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10867/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that when an appellate authority has asked the Income Tax Department to not take any coercive steps against an assessee for recovery of outstanding demands, the same can in some cases interdict the Department from adjusting the outstanding amount from refunds due to the assessee.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia took note of a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment which held that an adjustment would amount to 'coercive proceedings'.
Case title: Shiv Parkash Bansal v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-14 Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 394 Case no.: W.P.(C) 11156/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that the statutory scheme of Sections 153A and 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not envisage the discovery of a connection or interrelationship between the searched and the non-searched entity.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that the trigger for Section 153C is the discovery of articles in the course of a search which pertain or belong to a third party, and which may have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person.
Case title: Lufthansa Cargo AG v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11376/2024
In a relief to German cargo airline Lufthansa, the Delhi High Court set aside the Revenue's order denying nil TDS certificate to the company for the financial year 2024-25.
“Where the petitioner has been granted certificate at nil withholding tax for prior assessment years and there is no issue to the chargeability of the petitioner's income to tax under the Act, the impugned certificate requiring withholding tax at reduced rate instead of nil rate, cannot be sustained,” Court said.
Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemption Delhi v. IILM Foundation
Case no.: ITA 179/2023 and batch
The Delhi High Court has held that a Charitable Trust's status cannot be taken away citing violation of Section 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 merely because it made reasonable payment for services rendered by a related party.
Ordinarily, Charitable Trusts are not allowed to make payments for the benefit of 'prohibited parties'. The division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia however ruled that if such payment is reasonable, in exchange for the services offered by such a prohibited person, the exemption can be claimed.
Case title: J. G'S Departmental Store v. Income Tax Officer Ward 60(1) & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13669/2024
The Delhi High Court has set aside the reassessment action initiated against a partnership firm under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 over cash deposits made by it during demonetisation, stating that this ground was not mentioned in the notice issued to the firm under Section 148A(b).
Holding that reasons for initiating action under Section 148A(d) must be mentioned in the SCN under Section 148A(b), a division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tushar Rao Gedela said, “Concededly, there was no allegation in the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act that the cash deposited by the Assessee in its bank account during the demonetization period was disproportionately higher in comparison with the cash deposited during the corresponding period in the previous financial year. Thus, the Assessee had no opportunity to provide any explanation in respect of such allegation.”
Case title: M/S L-1 Identity Solutions Operating Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 25
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4845/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that an Assessing Officer cannot add income that allegedly escaped assessment in different previous years, to meet the threshold of ₹50 lakh prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for initiating reassessment action after lapse of three years.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia in the facts of the case observed, “the AO has erred in proceeding on the basis that it was open for the AO to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act bearing in mind the cumulative income that has escaped assessment in respect of FYs 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19. It is impermissible for the AO to add income which is alleged to have escaped assessment for different previous years for determining the threshold figure of ₹50 lakhs as specified under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act.”
Case title: Ankit Khandelwal v. Income Tax Officer & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 297/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that when determining whether a reassessment action meets the ₹50 lakh threshold prescribed under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act 1961, the value of income that allegedly escaped assessment as determined by the Assessing Officer at Section 148A(d) stage is relevant.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia clarified that the value alleged by the AO at Section 148A(b) stage, i.e. before considering the Assessee's stand, is not relevant for the purposes of threshold under Section 149.
Case title: Sukhbir S. Dagar v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 24(3)
Case no.: ITA 741/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that sanction for initiation of reassessment action against an assessee under the proviso to Section 151(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, cannot be issued by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax.
Section 151(1) contemplates issuance of sanction by JCIT for initiating reassessment action under Section 148 against an assessee who has already undergone scrutiny assessment. The proviso to Section 151(1) however adds that if the reassessment action is sought to be initiated after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no such notice shall be issued unless the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer.
Case title: The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 v. Bharti Airtel Ltd
Case no.: ITA 103/2025
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal preferred by the Income Tax Department claiming that Bharti Airtel should have deducted TDS on payments made to overseas telecom service providers for bandwidth services.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia relied on CIT v. Telstra Singapore Pte. Ltd. (2024) the High Court had held that where those availing services provided by a foreign telecom company were not accorded a right over the technology, infrastructure or any intellectual property, the agreements merely enabling availment of services cannot be construed as royalty taxable in India.
Case title: Carol Infrastructure Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 27, Delhi & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3927/2025
The Delhi High Court made it clear that Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 “does not contemplate a hiatus” between handing over and receipt of information or documents pertaining to a non-searched entity.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia observed, “The main body of Section 153C(1) of the Act and the proviso do not contemplate a hiatus between the handing over of the documents by the AO having jurisdiction over such person and receipt of the same by the AO having jurisdiction over person other than the searched person.”
Case title: The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -Central -1 v. Sneh Lata Sawhney (and batch)
Case no.: ITA 758/2023
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Clause (ix) of the Explanation to Section 153B of the Income Tax Act 1961 cannot be invoked to exclude the period of reference under the Indo-Swiss DTAA, if the reference itself is invalid.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia observed, “On a plain reading of Clause (ix) of the Explanation to Section 153B of the Act, the exclusion of time taken for obtaining the information (or one year) for completion of the assessment under Section 153A of the Act is applicable only if a reference for exchange of information has to be made as per the Agreement under Section 90/90A of the Act. It is necessary that reference be made in terms of the agreement. In this case, the benefit of exclusion of time by virtue of Explanation (ix) of Section 153B of the Act would, thus, be available only if the reference was made in terms of IndoSwiss DTAA. However, as noted above, the request as made was not in terms of the Indo-Swiss DTAA. It was contrary to the limitations as expressly specified under Article 14 of the Amending Protocol.”
Case title: U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd v. Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle.8, & Ors. (and batch)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2068/2015 (and batch)
A larger bench of the Delhi High Court will decide whether Section 149(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, inserted vide a 2012 amendment to provide an extended period of reassessment for cases involving foreign assets, applies retrospectively.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia expressed disagreement with a coordinate bench decision in Brahm Datt v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others (2018) where it was held that provisions of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act would not have any retrospective operation. It was of the view that the above decision was passed in ignorance of Explanation to Section 149, which clarified that the provision would be applicable for “any assessment year” beginning on or before 1st day of April 2012.
Case title: Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. A.H. Multisoft Pvt. Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 9/2025
The Delhi High Court recently rejected the appeal preferred by the Income Tax Department against an ITAT order allowing the valuation of a software company's unquoted equity shares by discounted cash flow [DCF] method.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia held that DCF method “is one of the methods that can be adopted by the Assessee under Rule 11UA(2)(b) of the [Income Tax] Rules for determining the FMV of unquoted equity shares in a company in which public are not substantially interested.”
Case title: Sanjay Kaul v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 24 (4), New Delhi & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11198/2019
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Income Tax Department cannot issue reassessment notice to an assessee based on general information shared by its Investigation Wing, until the Assessing Officer forms definite 'reason to believe' escapement of income.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia observed, “It is clear from the information received from the Investigation Wing…that the same was general in nature and did not point towards the involvement of the Petitioner in the arrangement of providing accommodation entry by contriving bogus short term capital loss. From the aforementioned information, it cannot be concluded that all the transactions…were sham in nature.”
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. M/S K.R. Pulp And Papers Ltd.
Case no.: ITA No. 529/2023
The Delhi High Court recently rejected Revenue's appeal against deletion of additions made to the income of an assessee-company alleged to have evaded tax, observing that the AO had already scrutinised the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders and in the absence of any additional material coming to light, reassessment action could not have been initiated.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia observed, “During the original proceedings, the AO had issued a questionnaire…The Assessee had furnished the response to the said questionnaire and had submitted the share application money, share application form, proof of identity, copy of PAN and copy of ITR as well as the bank statements of the share applicants. Thus, the identity as well as the creditworthiness of the applicants was duly scrutinized…Therefore, the AO was required to have some additional information, beyond what had already been examined, in order to form reasons to believe that the Assessee's income had escaped assessment.”
Payments Made To AWS For Cloud Computing Services Not Taxable: Delhi High Court
Case Title:THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs AMAZON WEB SERVICES
Case no.: ITA 150/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that payments made to Amazon Web Services (AWS) for cloud computing services do not qualify as “royalty.”
The bench, comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia, upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) decision which held that such payments are not taxable as royalties or fees for technical services (FTS). The Court referred to earlier judgments to emphasize the difference between transferring intellectual property rights and simply giving access to standardized digital services. It dismissed the appeal, highlighting the key distinction between access to digital resources and ownership or control over them.
Case title: M/S Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assessing Officer, Circle 10(1) & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11601/2024
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday set aside the reassessment action initiated against journalist Rajat Sharma's company, M/S Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd., which owns and runs the India TV channel, over alleged foreign remittances.
The notice was issued following a survey conducted by the Income Tax Department at the J&K Bank back in 2019, revealing that the company had made foreign remittances amounting to ₹6,50,84,454/- during AY 2017-18, which did not tally with the amounts reflected in its bank statement.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-7 v. M/S Thomson Press (India) Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 192/2025
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal preferred by the Income Tax Department against Thomson Press (India) over the sale of a property in Noida back in 2013, allegedly at a price much lower than the prevailing circle rate.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia noted that the registered agreement to sell and payment of stamp duty with respect to the property transaction were already completed by the date when the circle rate of the area in question was enhanced.
Case title: Tungsten Automation England Limited (Formerly Known As Tungsten Network Limited) v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(1) New Delhi
Case no.: ITA 92/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that consideration paid for merely availing services that require technical expertise would not qualify as 'Fees for Technical Service' under Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia observed that unless the recipient absorbs the technology and exploits it independently, it cannot qualify as 'FTS' which is taxable in India for the service provider.
Case title: Neeraj Bharadwaj v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(2) & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3979/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that assessments under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be made on a non-searched entity only when the Assessing Officer has incriminating material which “has a bearing” on its total income.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia rejected Revenue's contention that there was no requirement that the information contained in the seized material which relates to a non-searched person should have a bearing on his income for the AO to assume jurisdiction under Section 153C.
Case title: Anurag Dalmia v. Income Tax Office
Case no.: CRL.M.C. 1575/2018
The Delhi High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against an assessee under Section 276C, 276D and 277 of the Income Tax Act 1961 merely on the basis of some unauthorised documents alleging existence of an undisclosed Swiss Bank account in his name.
In doing so, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “Merely on some unauthenticated information received from a third Country with no material evidence, is not sufficient to make out a prima facie case and there cannot be a presumption that a person has committed any wrongdoing.Thus, mere surmise and conjectures is not enough to prosecute a person alleging a criminal offence under Section 276D.”
Case title: Raj Kumar Kedia v. Income Tax Office
Case no.: CRL. M.C. 219/2018
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a plea for quashing a criminal complaint lodged under Income Tax Act 1961 for alleged tax evasion, moved on the ground that reassessment action was pending and hence the complaint was premature.
The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna cited P. Jayappan vs. S.K. Perumal, First Income Tax Officer [1984] where it was held that pendency of re-assessment proceedings cannot act as a bar to the institution of criminal prosecution for the offences under Section 276-C or Section 277 Income Tax Act.
Case title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 v. Xiocom (Nz) Ltd
Case no.: ITA 299/2025
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that consideration paid by an Indian entity to a foreign company for the resale/ use of their computer software is not 'royalty'. A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar thus held that the Indian entity is not liable to deduct TDS in such cases.
The bench in this regard relied on Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Incometax & Another (2021) where the Supreme Court had held that amounts paid by Indian companies for the use of softwares developed by foreign companies do not amount to 'royalty' and that such payment do not give rise to income which is taxable in India.
Case title: Sangeet Seth v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16569/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that the higher rate of 5% interest to be paid when an assessee moves second plea for compounding the offence of failure to pay Tax Deductible at Source (TDS), is not applicable if their first plea was simply rejected.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar observed, “5% is only chargeable when the earlier offence has been compounded. This means that the compounding order should have been passed, and also the conditions stipulated in the said order should have been complied with (like payments), for the respondents to claim 5% charges on the second application, which necessarily has to be for a second offence.”
Case title: Woodland (Aero Club) Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 49(1), New Delhi
Case no.: ITA 267/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that an employer can claim deduction of employees' contributions towards Provident Fund or Employer's State Insurance Fund, held by it in trust, only if it deposits these amounts on or before the statutory due date prescribed under the relevant labour law.
Thus a division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar held, “Employer's contributions under Section 36(1)(iv) and employees' contributions covered under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section2(24)(x) are fundamentally different in nature and must be treated separately. Employees' contribution deducted from their salaries are deemed to be income under Section 2(24)(x) and are held in trust by the employer. The employers can claim deduction only if they deposit these amounts on or before the statutory due date under Section 36(1)(va).”
Case title: Raj Krishan Gupta And Ors v. Principal Director Of Income Tax (Investigation) -1 New Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11005/2024
The Delhi High Court has upheld the surprise search and seizure conducted by the Income Tax Department at the private lockers maintained by a family at South Delhi Vaults, without issuance of prior notice or summons to them. The family claimed that failure to notify them was a flagrant violation of Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which relates to 'Search and seizure'.
Section 132(1)(c) stipulates that when the Department has 'reason to believe' that any person is in possession of undisclosed money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles, then the officer authorised may open the locker, safe, etc. and seize such articles. The Petitioners however stressed on sub-sections (a) of the provision which stipulates issuance of summons or notice to such persons, asking them to produce books of account explaining the articles.
Case title: Court On Its Own Motion v. Anuradha Misra
Case no.: CONT.CAS(C) 506/2019
The Delhi High Court has dropped the civil contempt proceedings initiated against a Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (now retired) six years ago, for alleged wilful disobedience of its order to give reasons for insisting an assessee to deposit 20% demand in appeal.
The proceedings were initiated suo moto in 2019 on a prima facie opinion but on a closer scrutiny, Justice Vikas Mahajan now found that the Respondent's order though brief, was not bereft of reasons.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue's Demand Against Casio India In Transfer Pricing Case
Case Name: PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 v CASIO INDIA COMPANY PVT. LTD
Case Number: ITA 505/2025
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a transfer pricing demand against Casio India, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Japanese watchmaker, related to advertising, marketing and promotion expenses for the assessment year 2017-18
The Division Bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar ruled that the issue had already been settled in Casio's favour in previous years and therefore requires similar treatment.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Remfry And Sagar
Case no.: ITA 525/2025 + ITA 526/2025 + ITA 527/2025 + ITA 528/2025 + ITA 531/2025
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the ITAT allowing IPR law firm Remfry & Sagar to treat the license fees paid by it to acquire its founder's goodwill, as a business expense deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar thus dismissed the appeals preferred by the Income Tax Department against the firm.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1 v. M/S Agroha Fincap Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 60/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that the Income Tax Commissioner's order granting sanction under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for reopening assessment after four years of the relevant Assessment Year (AY) can be in the words— “Yes, I am convinced”.
Section 151(1) of the Act categorically provides that no notice for reassessment shall be issued under Section 148 by the Assessing Officer (AO), after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant AY, unless the Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the AO that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice.
Case title: Santosh Kumar Suri v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15373/2025
The Delhi High Court recently criticized the Income Tax Department for an over 2-year delay in implementing an ITAT order, directing it to reconsider the demand raised against an assessee.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and aShail Jain observed that the Income Tax Department must implement judicial orders with “alacrity” however in this case, it woke up only after the assessee moved the High Court to seek enforcement of the ITAT order passed back in January 2023.
Case title: Devender Singh v. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax, Delhi West
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16820/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that where fraudulent availment of tax by a fake firm comes to light, penalties can be imposed on the person behind the bogus operations.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Madhu Jain observed, “When the expression 'taxable person' has to be interpreted, the 'taxable person', so long as it is an identified real person/entity it would be the said person/entity itself. However, in the case of fake, nonexistent and fraudulent firms, who do not have any real persons as partners or proprietors or even any incorporation, the 'taxable person' would be the person who has got such firms created and used the same for availment of ITC.”
Case title: Grid Solutions SAS v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16355/2025
The Delhi High Court recently found time-barred, an income tax reassessment notice generated by the Department on the last day of the limitation window but, issued to the assessee only a day after.
The limitation period in the case at hand expired on June 30, 2025 (inclusive). The Income Tax Department claimed that the notice was generated on June 30, 2025 at 21:14:46 and signed on June 30, 2025 at 21:16:15 however, due to a technical glitch, it was shared on the assessee's e-filing portal only the next day.
Case title: Inder Dev Gupta v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 2-Delhi (and batch)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16937/2025 (and batch)
The Delhi High Court has held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) have jurisdiction to issue reassessment notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The position has been in dispute since introduction of the E-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022, which led to the setting up of the National Faceless Assessment Centre with Faceless Assessing Officers.
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Delhi v. KRBL Infrastructure Ltd
Case no.: ITA 494/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that once the initial onus cast upon an assessee to show the genuineness of its creditors is duly discharged, the question as to whether the funds of the creditor were obtained through genuine purchases or not cannot be gone into by the Revenue.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar observed, “Once the assessee discharges its initial onus of proving the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and also the genuineness of the transaction, it is not incumbent upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the funds at the hands of its lender, i.e., the “source of the source” of the funds.”
Delhi High Court Refuses To Condone 9-Month Delay By Assessee In Filing Revised Income Tax Return
Case title: Sanjay Khurana v. Income Tax Department Ministry Of Finance
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17379/2025
The Delhi High Court has refused to condone a delay of 9-months by an assessee in filing his revised income tax return (ITR).
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar remarked, “Surely it should not take nine months to realize that initial ITR has some mistakes, which requires a revised return.”
Case title: Neeraj Guglani v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-15 & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2579/2024
The Delhi High Court recently condoned the delay by an assessee in filing his Income Tax Return, citing his health condition as 'genuine hardship' under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar observed, “petitioner has highlighted the medical reasons, which prevented him from filing the ITR timely. The medical condition do indicate seriousness, which required surgery for cervical OPLL. Presumption can surely be drawn that the medical condition has prevented the filing of ITR within time.”
Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-1, New Delhi v. Clifford Chance Pte Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 353/2025 + ITA 354/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that in the absence of any physical presence, virtual services rendered by a foreign law firm in India would not constitute taxable service under India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar observed, “Article 5(6) of the DTAA only contemplates rendering of services by employees present within the country. If that be so, it is not for this Court to analyse the status or merits of a virtual service permanent establishment which does not find mention either in the DTAA or in the domestic Act. As such, the contention of the Revenue that a virtual service permanent establishment of the assessee has been established for AYs 2020-21 and 2021-22 cannot be accepted.”
Case title: Amandeep Singh Proprietor, Guru Kripa Enterprises v. Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 10 (1)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17047/2025
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with income reassessment action initiated by the tax authorities merely on the ground that two successive notices under Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 were issued to the assessee.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar observed, “as the fresh notice dated 13.06.2025 was issued with the same contents, the previous notice automatically becomes infructuous. Thus, no jurisdictional issue arises.”
Case title: Akasaki Technology (P) Ltd v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case no.: ITA 241/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals cannot remand assessment back to the Assessing Officer, unless it decides the jurisdictional validity of AO's order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act 1961.
Section 144 empowers the deals with the assessment of a taxpayer that is carried out by the Assessing Officer (AO) as per his best judgement and based on all relevant information gathered.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I Vs. M/S Avery Dennison (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Case No: ITA No. 690/2025
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the Income Tax Department's appeal against M/s Avery Dennison (India) Pvt. Ltd., reaffirming that no substantial question of law arises where the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) conclusions are unsupported by cogent evidence and the issue stands settled in favour of the assessee in earlier years.
A Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Mini Pushkarna was hearing an appeal filed by the Revenue for AY. 2012-2013, stated that that identical issues had been initiated by the Revenue since Assessment Year 2007-08 and had been consistently decided against it.
Case title: M/S Sirez Limited v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 405/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that internal disputes between the Directors of a company is not 'genuine hardship' under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961, preventing timely filing of its Income Tax Return, particularly in absence of convincing evidence.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Madhu Jain observed, “The internal dispute among the Directors of the company is not a genuine hardship, which can be the ground on which the delay can be condoned. Even otherwise, we are of the view, the dispute between the Directors, when the company is an ongoing concern cannot be the reason to not to file the ITR which is a statutory obligation on the part of the company.”
Case title: Saumya Chaurasia v. Union Of India & Others
Case no.: W.P.(C) 8191/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that approval of collegium of two CCIT/DGIT rank officers is only required in cases where tax evaded is less than the threshold limit of ₹25 Lakh.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar held, “the appropriate authority for initiating the prosecution proceedings would be the sanctioning authority i.e., the PCIT and not the collegium of two CCIT/DGIT rank officers since the tax to be evaded exceeds Rs. 25 lacs.”
Income Tax Act | S.153C Trigger Starts On Handing-Over Date, Not Search Date: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Gurugram Vs. Deepak Kumar Aggarwal
Case No.: ITA No. 742/2025 CM APPL. 78543/2025 CM APPL. 78544/2025
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurugram, upholding the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order which had rejected a reassessment notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act for AY 2013-14.
A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar held that the six-year block period under Section 153C must be computed from the date when seized documents were handed over to the Assessing Officer of the “other person,” and not from the date of search on the original assessee.
Software Receipts Can't Be Taxed On PE Assumption Already Rejected By ITAT: Delhi High Court
Case title: Zscaler Inc v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), New Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10556/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that software receipts cannot be subjected to tax deduction at source (TDS) on the assumption of a Permanent Establishment (PE) when such an assumption has already been rejected by ITAT, setting aside a withholding certificate issued under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar was dealing with a petition filed by Zscaler Inc, a US-based software company, challenging the Assessing Officer's order granting TDS certificate (withholding certificate) under Section 197 at 8.75% on payments received from company's Indian customers.
Case title: Rajesh Gupta & Ors. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 31 Delhi & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12433/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the 120-day period prescribed under the second proviso to Section 132B(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for deciding an assessee's request for release of seized assets is not mandatory, and a decision taken beyond the said period does not automatically become invalid.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar was dealing with a petition challenging the Income Tax Department's refusal to release jewellery seized during search proceedings under Section 132 of the Act.