Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 10 To February 16, 2025

Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 153 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 189

NOMINAL INDEX

RENUKA KULKARNI & ORS v. STATE and other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 153

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST & ANR v. DR. RAJAT SHRIVASTAVA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 154

Rocktek Infra Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 155

Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 156

Bharat Singh vs. Karan Singh & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 157

MOHD. RAFAYAT ALI v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 158

Sushil Aggarwal v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs and connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 159

M/S Addichem Speciallity LLP v. Special Commissioner I, Department Of Trade And Taxes And Anr and batch 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 160

ABHIJEET KUMAR v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 161

THILAKASRI KREPANAND & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 162

Jan Seva Welfare Society (Reg.) v. Union of India and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 163

AMAL SHARMA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 164

HARMEET SINGH v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 165

Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited vs. Sammaan Capital Limited & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 166

Star India Pvt. Ltd vs. IPTV Smarter Pro & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 167

ROJALINI PARIDA v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI THROUGH ITS VICE-CHANCELLOR & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 168

DR PRANNOY ROY & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 169

Anshul Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 170

KORE NIHAL PRAMOD v. UNION OF INDIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 171

JUSTICE (RETD.) S.N. DHINGRA, PRESIDENT, SAMAY YAAN (SASHAKT SAMAJ) v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 172

BHADRA INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD AND ORS. versus AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 173

Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Ashar Nisar & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 174

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. PRASHANT JAIN 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 175

Oracle America, Inc. vs. Mr. Sandeep Khandelwal And Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 176

Rajbir Singh vs. Commissioner Mcd And Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 177

SHOBHA VERMA AND ANR v. ASHOK KAPOOR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 178

Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corp. Ltd. (IRCTC) vs. M/s. Brandavan Food Products 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 179

Aon Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (Successor Entity Of Aon Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1 And Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 180

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 v. M/S Chemester Food Industries Pvt. Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 181

STATE v. NILESH MISHRA and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 182

RAKESH KUMAR v. CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 183

AJAY v. STATE & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 184

VANEETA GUPTA & ANR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR2025 LiveLaw (Del) 185

Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 186

Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 187

Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 188

M/S Aims Retail Services Private Limited v. Union Of India & Ors. and batch 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 189

Bald Allegations Against Investigating Officer Not Sufficient To Transfer Probe To Another Agency: Delhi High Court

Title: RENUKA KULKARNI & ORS v. STATE and other connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 153

The Delhi High Court has observed that transfer of investigation to another agency is only done in rare and exceptional cases where high officials of State authorities are involved.

“Accusations against an investigating officer alone is not sufficient to transfer investigation unless there is sufficient material to show that the investigating officer is mixed up with the accused. Bald allegations are not sufficient for transfer of investigation,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said.

Ratan Tata Is Well-Known Personal Name, Needs To Be Protected From Unauthorised Use By Third Party: Delhi High Court

Title: SIR RATAN TATA TRUST & ANR v. DR. RAJAT SHRIVASTAVA & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 154

The Delhi High Court has said that the name of industrialist Ratan Tata is a “well- known personal name or trademark” which needs to be protected from any unauthorised use by any third party.

Justice Mini Pushkarna ruled in favour of Ratan Tata Trust in a suit filed against a journalist- Dr. Rajat Srivastava, alleging that the latter was unauthorisedly using Ratan Tata's name to host an award ceremony.

Imposition Of Conditions By Customs For Provisional Release Of Seized Goods 'Discretionary': Delhi HC Tunes Down 130% Bank Guarantee

Case title: Rocktek Infra Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 155

The Delhi High Court has held that the imposition and severity of conditions imposed by the Customs Department for permitting provisional release of seized goods is “discretionary” in nature.

In doing so, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma scaled down the alleged onerous condition imposed on an importer, for executing a Bank Guarantee of 130% of the deferential duty.

Delhi High Court Grants Custody Parole To MP Engineer Rashid To Attend Parliament, Proscribes Him From Using Internet Or Speaking To Media

Title: Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 156

The Delhi High Court granted custody parole of two days to Jammu and Kashmir MP Rashid Engineer, who is detained in relation to a terror funding case registered under UAPA.

Rashid sought custody parole in order to attend the Parliamentary budget session. The Court has granted custody parole to Rashid for February 11 and 13.

Mediation Time Period Can Be Excluded While Computing Limitation For Filing Written Statement: Delhi High Court

Case title: Bharat Singh vs. Karan Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 157

The Delhi High Court has observed that the time spent during the mediation process can be excluded while calculating the limitation period for filing a written statement under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

Consensual Nature Of Relationship Irrelevant For Prosecution Under POCSO Act: Delhi High Court

Title: MOHD. RAFAYAT ALI v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 158

The Delhi High Court has observed that prima facie, the consensual nature of relationship between the accused and prosecutrix is irrelevant for prosecution under the POCSO Act.

Rejecting the accused's plea that the relationship between him and the prosecutrix was consensual in nature, Justice Sanjeev Narula said:

“This plea of consensual relationship is legally immaterial. Under the POCSO Act, the age of the victim is the decisive factor, and if the victim is below 18 years of age, the law presumes that she is incapable of giving valid consent. The alleged consensual nature of the relationship is, therefore, prima facie irrelevant for the purpose of prosecution under the POCSO Act.”

No Unfettered Right To Cross-Examine Person Making Statements U/S 138(B) Customs Act: Delhi High Court

Case title: Sushil Aggarwal v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs and connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 159

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a person facing charges under the Customs Act, 1962 does not have an unfettered right under Section 138B, to cross-examine the informant or person making incriminatory statements.

S.107 CGST Act Prescribes Independent Regime Of Limitation For Filing Appeals, Application Of S.5 Limitation Act Stands Excluded: Delhi HC

Case title: M/S Addichem Speciallity LLP v. Special Commissioner I, Department Of Trade And Taxes And Anr and batch

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 160

The Delhi High Court has held that since Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes an “independent regime” to determine the limitation period for filing statutory appeals, the provision for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands excluded.

Close Proximity At Workplace Often Results In Sexual Relationships Which Get Reported As Crimes After Turning Sour: Delhi High Court

Title: ABHIJEET KUMAR v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 161

The Delhi High Court has said that close proximity at the workplace, many times, results in consensual sexual relationships which later get reported as crimes such as rape after they turn sour.

“In the present times, many a times close proximity at workplace results in consensual relationships which on turning sour, get reported as crimes, making it pertinent to be conscious of the distinction between the offence of rape and consensual sex between two adults,” Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.

Delhi High Court Quashes LOC Against Two Individuals Issued Over 2021 Toolkit Case

Title: THILAKASRI KREPANAND & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 162

The Delhi High Court has quashed a look out circular issued against two individuals over the toolkit case registered by the Delhi Police in relation to the 2021 farmers' protest.

Justice Sanjeev Narula quashed the LOC against Thilakasri Krupanand and Shantunu Muluk, noting that the investigation has been ongoing for nearly four years and yet no chargesheet was filed against them.

Delhi High Court Orders Creating Of Common App For MCD, DDA & NDMC Regarding Complaints On Public Toilets

Title: Jan Seva Welfare Society (Reg.) v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 163

The Delhi High Court has directed that a common application be developed to be used by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) for attending to the grievances in relation to malfunctioning of public toilets in the national capital.

Police Must Fully Cooperate With Municipal Bodies For Implementation Of Traffic Management Plans: Delhi High Court

Title: AMAL SHARMA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 164

The Delhi High Court has said that the police authorities must extend their fullest cooperation to the municipal or local bodies for implementation of traffic management plans in the national capital.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was hearing a public interest litigation filed by one Amal Sharma highlighting the issue of haphazard parking in Delhi.

Magistrate Can't Direct Superior Officer Like DCP To Register FIR Under Section 156(3) Of CrPC: Delhi High Court

Title: HARMEET SINGH v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 165

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a magistrate has no power to direct a superior officer such as a DCP to register an FIR under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that as per the statutory mandate, the Magistrate is only empowered to direct the in-charge officer of the police station to conduct investigation and not any officer of a superior rank.

Both Denote Respect: Delhi HC Restrains Infringement Of NBFC's 'SVAMAAN' Trademark By Identical Business Using 'SAMMAAN' Name

Case title: Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited vs. Sammaan Capital Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 166

The Delhi High Court has granted a temporary injunction in favour of Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited, a non-banking finance company (NBFC) providing microfinance loans, against trademark infringement by other businesses providing identical services using the 'SAMMAAN' formative name in their corporate logo.

Delhi High Court Directs Blocking Access Of IPTV Websites Infringing Star India's Content

Case title: Star India Pvt. Ltd vs. IPTV Smarter Pro & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 167

The Delhi High Court has issued a temporary injunction in favour of the entertainment and media company, Star India Pvt. Ltd, against infringement of its copyrights and broadcast reproduction rights by IPTV streaming applications.

Evolve Mechanism For Online Classes, Time Frame For Students' Representation On Short Attendance: High Court To Delhi University, BCI

Title: ROJALINI PARIDA v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI THROUGH ITS VICE-CHANCELLOR & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 168

The Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi University and the Bar Council of India to evolve mechanism to enable students to attend LLB classes online and for specific time-frame in which they may make representation regarding short attendance.

Delhi High Court Permits NDTV Founders Prannoy Roy, Radhika Roy To Travel Abroad

Title: DR PRANNOY ROY & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 169

The Delhi High Court permitted NDTV's former directors and promoters Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy to travel to Dubai in August.

Justice Sachin Datta noted that the duo has been permitted to travel abroad on various occasions and both of them have complied with the conditions imposed on them in judicial orders.

Delhi High Court Junks PIL To Conduct NEET UG Exam Twice A Year Like JEE, Says Decision Lies With Concerned Authorities

Title: Anshul Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 170

The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a PIL for conducting the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-UG) examination twice a year in multiple shifts on the lines the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) is held.

Delhi High Court Expresses Concern Over Delay In Implementation Of Judicial Orders But Refuses To Order 'Compliance Cells' In Govt Departments

Title: KORE NIHAL PRAMOD v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 171

The Delhi High Court observed that it is the exclusive executive domain of the government to evolve a robust mechanism to ensure compliance of judicial orders.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of a plea highlighting the alleged “systemic inefficiencies and bureaucratic inertia” prevalent in government departments due to delayed implementation of judicial orders.

Delhi High Court Rejects Retired Justice SN Dhingra's PIL Against Election Freebies, Asks Him To Approach Supreme Court In Pending Case

Title: JUSTICE (RETD.) S.N. DHINGRA, PRESIDENT, SAMAY YAAN (SASHAKT SAMAJ) v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 172

The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a PIL filed by retired Justice SN Dhingra against the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and Indian National Congress (INC) over their political promises to distribute cash to the voters in polls.

Award Cannot Be Set Aside When No Objections Were Raised Before Arbitrator Or Court U/S 12(5) Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: BHADRA INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD AND ORS. versus AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 173

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul held that the award cannot be set aside solely on the ground that the appointment of the Arbitrator was illegal in view of section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Arbitration Act) when no such objections were raised before the Arbitrator or the court under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Rogue Apps & Websites From Illegally Streaming Star India's Content

Case title: Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Ashar Nisar & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 174

The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of Star India Pvt. Ltd against copyright infringement of its content by rogue apps and websites such as Ninja TV, RTS TV, Kyte TV, Picaso TV, Stream India and Hotstar Mod App.

Delhi High Court Discharges Lawyer In Criminal Contempt Case, Asks Him To Not Indulge In Aggressive Behaviour In Future

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. PRASHANT JAIN

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 175

The Delhi High Court has discharged a lawyer in a criminal contempt case and asked him not to indulge in aggressive behaviour in the future.

A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Dharmesh Sharma took a compassionate view of the matter and accepted the apology of the lawyer.

'Deceptively Similar': Delhi HC Orders Cancellation Of 'Javatpoint' Trademark In Oracle America's Plea Challenging Infringement Of Its 'JAVA' Mark

Case title: Oracle America, Inc. vs. Mr. Sandeep Khandelwal And Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 176

The Delhi High Court ordered the cancellation of the trademark registration of 'javapoint' in a plea filed by the American software company, Oracle America Inc, which owns the rights over Java software.

Justice Amit Bansal in his order said, "As may be seen from the side-by-side comparison of the marks set out in the table above, the impugned mark subsumes the petitioner's mark JAVA in its entirely and is almost identical with its mark JAVASCRIPT. The minor difference/ addition in the impugned mark does not render it different from the petitioner's prior and reputed JAVA marks when considered in totality. It is therefore evident that the impugned mark is deceptively similar to the petitioner's JAVA marks. This Court further notes that the petitioner also provides series of JAVA training and certification courses around the world including online courses accessible by users in India. Therefore, the target consumers of the rival parties are identical and overlapping".

Decide On Uniformity In Interest Rate For Delayed Payment Of Retiral Benefits: Delhi High Court To CAT

Case title: Rajbir Singh vs. Commissioner Mcd And Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 177

The Delhi High Court has directed the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to decide on the issue of uniformity in judicial orders passed by the Tribunal in respect of the rate of interest to be awarded on delayed payment of retiral benefits by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), by constituting an appropriate bench for the matter.

"Hybrid Courts Are Also Courts": Delhi HC Objects To Lawyer Appearing On VC From Park, Calls For Sensitization To Ensure Courtroom Decorum

Title: SHOBHA VERMA AND ANR v. ASHOK KAPOOR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 178

Taking exception to a lawyer appearing through videoconferencing while standing in a park with a mobile phone in his hand, the Delhi High Court has called for sensitization of lawyers on maintaining decorum while appearing in hybrid courts.

Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Against IRCTC In Dispute Over Reimbursement For Catering Services, Sets Aside Interest As 'Patently Illegal'

Case Title: Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corp. Ltd. (IRCTC) vs. M/s. Brandavan Food Products

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 179

The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur has reiterated the limited scope of interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A&C Act”). The court upheld the arbitral award granted in favour of M/s Brandavan Food Products Ltd. (“Claimant”) in a dispute regarding the reimbursement of differential costs for meals and beverages supplied under a catering contract with the Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (IRCTC) (“Respondent”). The court set aside the interest award as 'patently illegal' as interest could not be granted on amounts not due as of a particular date.

Transfer Pricing | Resolution Under Mutual Agreement Procedure Is By Consensus, Cannot Be Imposed Upon Assessee: Delhi HC

Case title: Aon Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (Successor Entity Of Aon Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1 And Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 180

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.

High Court Within Whose Jurisdiction AO Passes Assessment Order Has Jurisdiction To Entertain Appeal U/S 260A Income Tax Act: Delhi HC

Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 v. M/S Chemester Food Industries Pvt. Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 181

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.

Courts Must Avoid Disparaging Remarks Which Lower Credibility Of Investigating Authority: Delhi High Court

Title: STATE v. NILESH MISHRA and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 182

The Delhi High Court has observed that the use of scathing and disparaging remarks which tend to lower the credibility of the investigating authority ought to be avoided by the courts.

Justice Amit Mahajan said that strong criticism and vituperative remarks, may have a devastating impact on the reputation and career of police officials which are not only unnecessary but also have serious consequences on the careers of public servants.

Passport, Personal ID Details Can't Be Disclosed To Third Party Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court

Title: RAKESH KUMAR v. CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 183

The Delhi High Court has ruled that details about passport and personal identification documents cannot be disclosed to a third party under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Justice Sachin Datta referred to various judgments on the issue and said: “…disclosures which may be sought by a third party under the provisions of RTI act pertaining to passport or any other personal identification document, squarely falls under the ambit of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.”

Misuse Of Section 498A IPC Doesn't Mean Genuine Cases Of Harassment Don't Exist: Delhi High Court

Title: AJAY v. STATE & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 184

The Delhi High Court has observed that the misuse of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, does not mean that genuine cases of harassment do not exist.

Mere Demand For Dowry Not Offence U/S 498A IPC, Simpliciter Allegation Of Intimidation Not Harassment: Delhi High Court

Title: VANEETA GUPTA & ANR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 185

The Delhi High Court has said that mere demand for dowry is no offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and simpliciter allegation of intimidation does not constitute harassment.

Justice Amit Mahajan made the observation while quashing an FIR registered by a wife against the relatives of the husband. The case was registered against the husband, parents and the relatives in 2019.

Delhi High Court Orders Customs To Release Traveller's Gold Worth ₹20 Lakh, Iphone, Playstation & More Over Failure To Issue SCN

Case title: Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 186

The Delhi High Court ordered the Customs authorities to release a traveller's gold worth over ₹14 lakh and other branded articles like iPhone, PlayStation, etc. over the authority's failure to issue him a show cause notice.

ALP Not Concerned With Commercial Expediency Of International Transaction, Assessee Reporting Loss Not Grounds To Deem ALP Nil: Delhi HC

Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 187

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.

TPO's Role Is To Determine ALP Of International Transactions, Can't Act As AO To Probe Legitimacy Of Such Transactions: Delhi High Court

Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 188

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.

Disabling 'Regional Lock' Of Phone To Allow Use Outside India Doesn't Make It 'Used Goods' Ineligible For Duty Drawbacks: Delhi High Court

Case title: M/S Aims Retail Services Private Limited v. Union Of India & Ors. and batch

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 189

The Delhi High Court has held that merely unlocking/ activating a new mobile phone by disabling the “regional lock” which is put by original equipment manufacturers to restrict usage to a specific geographical location, does not make the mobile phone a “used” good.