PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI 1 vs. M/S DCM SHRIRAM LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/397/2026HC DelhiDLHC01110509202513 May 2026Author: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that for both issues, the ITAT had relied on its own prior order for Assessment Year 2014-15. This prior order had been affirmed by the High Court itself in its judgments dated 02.05.2024 and 21.01.2025, specifically in ITA 566/2023, which involved the respondent-assessee. Consequently, as the issues had already been decided by the High Court in the case of the respondent-assessee, the Court found no substantial question of law to be elaborated upon. The appeal was therefore dismissed. The application for condonation of delay of 22 days in filing the appeal was allowed ex parte as no prejudice was caused to the assessee, given the dismissal on merits.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi 1, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi "I" Bench. The ITAT's order dealt with two issues concerning the respondent-assessee, M/s DCM Shriram Ltd.: (i) Transfer Pricing addition in relation to steam, and (ii) Electricity supplied to a non-eligible unit. The appellant sought condonation for a delay of 135 days in re-filing the appeal. The High Court also noted a delay of 22 days in filing the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there is a substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order concerning the Transfer Pricing addition in relation to steam. (Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961). The appellant contended that the ITAT's decision on this issue warrants further examination. The respondent's contentions are not recorded. 2. Whether there is a substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order concerning the addition for electricity supplied to a non-eligible unit. (Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961). The appellant contended that the ITAT's decision on this issue warrants further examination. The respondent's contentions are not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 7 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~286 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 397/2026 & CM APPL. 31979/2026 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI 1 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal, SSC with Ms.Sakshi Shainwal, JSC, Mr. Gaoraang Ranjan & Mr. Harshita Kotnu, Advs. versus M/S DCM SHRIRAM LTD. .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

O R D E R %

13.05.

2026 CM APPL. 31978/2026 (condonation of delay of 135 days in re-filing)

1.

This is an application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of 135 days‟ delay in re-filing the appeal.

2.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 135 days in re-filing the appeal stands condoned. ITA 397/2026

3.

By way of the present appeal, preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’), the appellant-Department has challenged the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi “I” Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in ITA No.927/Del/2022 and 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 15/05/2026 at 12:27:35

other connected appeals involving two issues- (i) Transfer Pricing addition in relation to steam and (ii) Electricity supplied to its unit which was non- eligible unit.

4.

On perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, we find that qua both the issues, the Tribunal has relied upon its own order for Assessment Year 2014-15, which has been affirmed by the High Court vide its order dated 02.05.2024 passed in ITA 566/2023 and judgment dated 21.01.2025 rendered in ITA 566/2023. 5. Since the issues have already been decided by this Court in the case of respondent-assessee itself, we do not find any substantial question of law to be dilated upon by us. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.

6.

Though there is a delay of 22 days in filing the appeal, but since we have not found any case warranting interference on merits, the application seeking condonation of delay of 22 days in filing the appeal being CM APPL. 31977/2026 is allowed ex parte, as no prejudice is caused to the assessee.

7.

All pending application(s) are, therefore, disposed of.

DINESH MEHTA, J

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J MAY 13, 2026 kk

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 15/05/2026 at 12:27:35

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →