PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-3), DELHI vs. KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OPERATIVE LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/459/2025HC DelhiDLHC01102370202323 September 2026Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The Court followed its own prior decisions in PCIT v. M/s Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. and PR Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) 3 New Delhi v. Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd. In these precedents, the Court had held that an amendment to Section 14A, even if stated to be for 'removal of doubts', cannot be presumed to be retrospective if it alters the law as it previously stood. The Court noted that although the judgment in Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. was challenged before the Supreme Court, there was no stay. Therefore, applying the principles laid down in Supreme Court judgments in Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another and Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South India Trust Association, the appeals were dismissed. The dismissal was made subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court in the special leave petition concerning Pr. CIT v. IL and FS Energy Development Company Ltd.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-3), Delhi (the Revenue) against Krishak Bharati Co-operative Ltd. (the Assessee). The appeals challenged orders from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), though the specific assessment years and the ITAT's decision are not detailed. The Revenue filed applications for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeals, with delays ranging from 13 days to 864 days. These applications were allowed by the Delhi High Court. The appeals were consolidated for hearing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the amendment to Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, introduced for 'removal of doubts', can be presumed to be retrospective, even if it alters the existing law? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Assessee. The Assessee's counsel appeared and was represented. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue relied on the High Court's own previous judgments in similar matters, specifically citing the decision in PCIT v. M/s Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (2022) 448 ITR 674 (Delhi) and a subsequent order dated 23.02.2026 in PR Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) 3 New Delhi v. Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd., ITA 147/2026. These precedents dealt with the retrospective application of Section 14A amendments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ITA 459/2025 Page 1 of 6 $~27 to 32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC011023702023 + ITA 459/2025 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-3), DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Amanpreet Singh Chhabra, Adv. versus KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OPERATIVE LTD. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv.; Mr. Harshit Singh, Adv.; Mr. Yashwant Sanjenbam, Adv. (28) # CNR No. DLHC011023712023 + ITA 460/2025 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-3), DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Amanpreet Singh Chhabra, Adv. versus KRISHAK BHARTI CO-OPERATIVE LTD. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv.; Mr. Harshit Singh, Adv.; Mr. Yashwant Sanjenbam, Adv. (29) # CNR No. DLHC011322892024 + ITA 569/2026

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 25/09/2026 at 11:42:17 PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 3 NEW DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC, Ms. Naincy Jain, JSC, Mr. Udit Dad, Mr. Ujjwal Jain, Adv. versus M/S KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD .....Respondent Through: Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv.; Mr. Harshit Singh, Adv.; Mr. Yashwant Sanjenbam, Adv. (30) # CNR No. DLHC011322902024 + ITA 570/2026 PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 3 NEW DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC, Ms. Naincy Jain, JSC, Mr. Udit Dad, Mr. Ujjwal Jain, Adv. versus M/S KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD .....Respondent Through: Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv.; Mr. Harshit Singh, Adv.; Mr. Yashwant Sanjenbam, Adv. (31) # CNR No. DLHC011023692023 + ITA 461/2025 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-3), DELHI ....Appellant Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Amanpreet Singh Chhabra, Adv. 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 25/09/2026 at 11:42:17 versus KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OPERATIVE LTD. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv.; Mr. Harshit Singh, Adv.; Mr. Yashwant Sanjenbam, Adv. (32) # CNR No. DLHC011023722023 + ITA 465/2025 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-3), DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Amanpreet Singh Chhabra, Adv. versus KRISHAK BHARTI CO-OPERATIVE LTD. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv.; Mr. Harshit Singh, Adv.; Mr. Yashwant Sanjenbam, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR O R D E R %

23.09.

2026 CM APPL. 60325/2025 in ITA 459/2025

1.

This is an application on behalf of the Appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

2.

For the reasons stated in the appeal, the delay of 13 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

3.

The application is disposed of. 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 25/09/2026 at 11:42:17 CM APPL. 60326/2025 in ITA 459/2025

4.

This is an application on behalf of the Appellant for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.

5.

For the reasons stated in the appeal, the delay of 864 days in re-filing

the appeal is condoned.

6.

The application is disposed of. CM APPL. 60330/2025 in ITA 460/2025

7.

This is an application on behalf of the Appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

8.

For the reasons stated in the appeal, the delay of 805 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

9.

The application is disposed of. CM APPL. 60333/2025 in ITA 461/2025

10.

This is an application on behalf of the Appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

11.

For the reasons stated in the appeal, the delay of 13 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

12.

The application is disposed of. CM APPL. 60334/2025 in ITA 461/2025

13.

This is an application on behalf of the Appellant for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.

14.

For the reasons stated in the appeal, the delay of 864 days in re-filing

the appeal is condoned.

15.

The application is disposed of. CM APPL. 60435/2025 in ITA 465/2025

16.

This is an application on behalf of the Appellant for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. 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 25/09/2026 at 11:42:17 17.

For the reasons stated in the appeal, the delay of 842 days in re-filing

the appeal is condoned.

18.

The application is disposed of. ITA 459/2025 , ITA 460/2025 , ITA 569/2026, ITA 570/2026, ITA 461/2025 , ITA 465/2025

19.

Learned Counsel for the parties state that in view of the Order passed by this Court in PCIT v. M/s Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd., (2022) 448 ITR 674 (Delhi) which has been followed by this Court in the Order dated 23.02.2026 titled as PR Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) 3 New Delhi v. Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd., ITA 147/2026, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has observed as under:- “12. In the case of Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (Supra), this Court has held thus:- “8. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the amendment of Section 14A, which is “for removal of doubts” cannot be presumed to be retrospective even Division Bench in PCIT vs. IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd (supra) and Cheminvest Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, (2015) 378 ITR 33. 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 25/09/2026 at 11:42:17 10. Accordingly, the appeal and application are dismissed. However, it is clarified that the order passed in the present appeal shall abide by the final decision of the Supreme Court in the special leave petition (SLP) filed in the case of Pr. CIT v. IL and FS Energy Development Company Ltd. (supra).”

13.

Following the above judgment, the appeal is dismissed, however with the stipulation as given in para no. 10 above in the case of M/s Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (Supra).”

20.

In view of the above, the present appeals are dismissed. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J RENU BHATNAGAR, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026 hsk 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 25/09/2026 at 11:42:17

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →