PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 NEW DELHI vs. M/S ANSAL PHALAK INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD NOW KNOWN AS NEW LOOK BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/766/2025HC DelhiDLHC01103658202519 December 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Delhi decided that the appeal filed by the Revenue would not be pressed. The Revenue's counsel explicitly stated that due to the low tax effect of the appeal, they would not be pressing it. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The pending applications related to the appeal were also dismissed as infructuous. The judgment does not provide any findings on the merits of the case or the underlying tax dispute.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi (Revenue) against an order concerning M/s Ansal Phalak Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (now known as New Look Builders and Developers Pvt Ltd) (Assessee). The specific assessment year(s) and the nature of the order under challenge are not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history is limited to the filing of the appeal before the High Court of Delhi. The Revenue, through its counsel, stated that the appeal has a low tax effect.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be pressed by the Revenue, considering its low tax effect. This is a question of procedure and administrative decision. The Revenue's contention is that the appeal has a low tax effect and therefore, they do not wish to press it. No specific arguments were recorded for the Assessee regarding this procedural matter.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 766/2025 CM APPL. 80757/2025(Exemption) CM APPL. 80758/2025 7f CM APPL. 80759/2025 152r PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 NEW DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC, Ms. Naincy Jain, JSC, Ms. Madhavi Shukla, JSC, Mr. Udit Dad, Advocates for the Revenue. versus M/S ANSAL PHALAK INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD NOW KNOWN AS NEW LOOK BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rashi Khanna, Mr. Devansh Jain, Mr. Sohum Dua and Mr. Abhyudaya Bajpyee, Ms. Manvi and Mr. Ghunain Siddiqui, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R %

19.12.2025 1. Ms. Naincy Jain states, as the appeal has low tax effect, she shall not press the appeal. 2. The appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 3. Pending applications are also dismissed, as infructuous. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J DECEMBER 19, 2025 ss 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 24/12/2025 at 12:25:00

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →