COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TABLEAU INTERNATIONAL UNLIMITED COMPANY

ITA - 327 / 2025HC Delhi22 August 20252 pages

For Petitioner: RUCHIR BHATIA

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court condoned the delay of 486 days in re-filing the appeal by the Revenue, based on the reasons stated in the application. The Court acknowledged that an identical issue is pending before the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. (2023) (4) TMI 579 (Delhi High Court), which was relied upon by the ITAT. The Court also noted a previous order in ITA 404/2024 where a similar matter was listed for hearing on 31.10.2025. Consequently, the High Court re-notified the present appeal for hearing on 31.10.2025. No decision on the merits of the appeal was made.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 (the Revenue) filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). There was a delay of 486 days in re-filing the appeal, which the High Court condoned. The Revenue's counsel informed the Court that an identical issue is pending before the Supreme Court, arising from the case of CIT v. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. (2023) (4) TMI 579 (Delhi High Court), which was relied upon by the ITAT. The Court also noted a previous order dated 21.04.2025 in ITA 404/2024, where a similar matter was listed for hearing on 31.10.2025, referencing the Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should condone the delay of 486 days in re-filing the appeal by the Revenue? (Procedural issue) 2. Whether the issue raised in the appeal is identical to the issue pending before the Supreme Court in CIT v. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. (2023) (4) TMI 579 (Delhi High Court)? (Issue of fact/law) Assessee's arguments: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue's counsel informed the Court that an identical issue is pending before the Supreme Court arising from CIT v. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. (2023) (4) TMI 579 (Delhi High Court), on which the ITAT had relied. The Revenue also pointed to a previous order in ITA 404/2024 where a similar matter was listed for hearing.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 327/2025 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhaita, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus TABLEAU INTERNATIONAL UNLIMITED COMPANY .....Respondent Through: Mr. Divyanshu Agrawal, Ms Bharti Sharma and Mr. Vaibhav Niti, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R %

22.08.2025 CM APPL. 51865/2025 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 486 days in re- filing the captioned appeal is condoned. 2. Application stands disposed of. ITA 327/2025 3. Issue notice. 4. At the outset, Mr. Ruchir Bhatia informs, Sr. Standing Counsel appearing for appellant states that the identical issue is pending consideration before the Supreme Court arising from CIT v. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. (2023) (4) TMI 579 (Delhi High Court) on which reliance has been placed by the ITAT. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 12:32:15

Our attention has also been drawn to the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by this Court in ITA 404/2024, wherein the court by giving reference to the aforesaid case has listed the matter 31.10.2025. 6. Accordingly, renotify this appeal on 31.10.2025. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J AUGUST 22, 2025 dd This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 12:32:15

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →