MAHARISHI EDUCATION CORPORATION PVT LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-16 (1) & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/679/2025HC DelhiDLHC01093898202503 August 2026Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had proceeded on incorrect facts supplied by the Department, specifically regarding the tax rate applied to long-term capital gains. The AO's comments clarified that the tax was calculated at 20% on Rs. 14,98,151/-, not 22%. Consequently, the declaration of law made by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, based on this incorrect assumption, was set aside. However, the question of law regarding the correct tax rate was kept open. Regarding the dispute concerning interest under Section 234B, the AO was directed to provide a copy of the interest calculation to the assessee via email within 15 days, reserving the assessee's right to pursue appropriate legal remedies. The appeal was disposed of in terms of the AO's comments, and the limitation period for any future appeal by the assessee concerning Section 234B interest would be counted from the date of receiving the AO's communication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Maharishi Education Corporation Pvt Ltd, is in appeal before the Delhi High Court against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The dispute pertains to the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated but relates to the calculation of tax on long-term capital gains. The Assessing Officer (AO) provided comments stating that the tax on long-term capital gains of Rs. 14,98,151/- was calculated at 20% and not 22% as claimed by the assessee. The AO's comments also indicated a difference in interest under Section 234B between the assessee's return and the CPC's intimation. The CIT(A) and ITAT had proceeded on the premise that the tax was correctly calculated at 22%.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the tax on long-term capital gains was correctly calculated at 20% or 22% under Section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, considering the AO's subsequent clarification. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) and ITAT erred by proceeding on the incorrect assumption that the tax was calculated at 22%, whereas the AO's comments clarified it was at 20%. The revenue, through the AO's comments, argued that the tax was correctly calculated at 20% and that the assessee had not disputed the interest under Section 234B before lower authorities, thus all questions of law raised by the assessee should be rejected. 2. Whether the dispute regarding interest under Section 234B of the Act of 1961, as now raised by the AO, requires further adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115BAA,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~112 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010938982025 + ITA 679/2025, CM APPL. 73895/2025 MAHARISHI EDUCATION CORPORATION PVT LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr.Ved Kumar Jain, Mr. Nischay Kantoor, Mr. Ishan Khandelwal and Ms. Vandana Kothiair, Advs. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-16 (1) & ANR ......Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, JSC, Mr. Viplav Acharya, JSC, Mr. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

O R D E R %

03.08.

2026

1.

Mr.Apoorv Agarwal and Mr.Abhishek Maratha learned counsel for the respondents have placed on record the comments furnished by the Assessing Officer (AO) dated 05.12.2025, wherein the Assessing Officer has categorically stated that the tax on long term capital gain imposed upon the petitioner was calculated at the rate of 20 per cent on Rs.14,98,151/- and not at the rate of 22 per cent.

2.

The relevant part of the AO's comments is reproduced hereinunder:- “5.1 On verification of the fact, it is observed that the reason for determination of demand of Rs. 59,970/- in intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 30.12.2023 is due to difference in interest u/s 234B 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 05/08/2026 at 11:45:58

claimed by assessee in its ITR and actually determined by CPC in passing intimation order u/s 143(1). The actual tax without interest is Rs. 3,42,777/- which is 20 per cent of the offered income of Rs.14,98,151/- by the assessee. The computation of tax are as under:-

Sl. No. Income offered as per Assessee Tax as per assessee Income determined u/s 143(1) dated 30.12.2023 Tax as per CPC in intimation order 30.12.2023

1.

Rs.14,98,151/- (i) Tax payable on income @ 20%: Rs.2,99,653/- (ii) Surcharge @ 10% on tax: Rs.29,663/- (iii) EC@4% on [(i)+(ii)]: Rs.13,184/- Total Tax: Rs.3,42,777/-

Rs.14,98,151/- (i) Tax payable on income @ 20%: Rs.2,99,630/- (ii) Surcharge @ 10% on tax: Rs.29,963/- (iii) EC@4% on [(i)+(ii)] Rs. 13,184/- Total Tax: Rs.3,42,777/-

As apparent from above, there is no question of wrong computation of income or tax thereon arises. Hence, all the questions of law rose before Hon’ble High Court from S.No. (a) to (h) do not hold water. The tax rate is correctly applied @ 20% instead of 22% as claimed by the assessee u/s 115BAA(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee has not disputed the interest u/s 234B of the Act before the Ld. NFAC, Hon’ble ITAT and Hon’ble High Court. Therefore, all the question of law raised by the assessee deserves to be rejected”.

3.

In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CIT(A) so also the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) had proceeded on wrong facts supplied by the Department and held that the tax has rightly been calculated at the rate of 22 per cent, as per the provisions given under Section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1961’). 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 05/08/2026 at 11:45:58

4.

Since the adjudication made in appellant’s case by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal was based on incorrect assumption facts, the declaration of law in this regard is set aside, while keeping such question of law open.

5.

So far as the dispute in relation to the interest under Section 234B of the Act of 1961, now sought to be raised by the AO is concerned, it is ordered that a copy of calculation of interest shall be provided by the AO to the assessee on assessee’s registered e-mail ID, within a period of 15 days from today, against which the assessee’s right to avail appropriate legal remedies shall remain reserved.

6.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly (in terms of the AO's comments reproduced hereinabove) along with pending applications, if any.

7.

In case, the assessee chooses to prefer an appeal, limitation for filing

the appeal shall be counted from the date on which, the assessee receives such intimation/communication regarding the calculation of interest under Section 234B of the Act of 1961, supplied by the AO.

DINESH MEHTA, J.

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. AUGUST 3, 2026 neelam

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 05/08/2026 at 11:45:58

More judgments on Section 115BAA

All 225 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BAA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →