VISAGE LINES PERSONAL CARE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 25(1), & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/6230/2026HC DelhiDLHC01020124202626 May 2026Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court granted permission to the petitioner to withdraw the writ petitions. The Court noted that the petitioner had received an order dated 20.05.2026 passed under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-7, which, according to the petitioner, redressed their grievance. Based on this submission and the granted permission, the High Court formally dismissed the writ petitions as withdrawn. All pending applications associated with these petitions were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Visage Lines Personal Care Private Limited, filed two writ petitions before the Delhi High Court. These petitions challenged an order dated 20.05.2026 passed under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-7. The petitioner's counsel informed the Court that the aforementioned order has redressed the petitioner's grievance. Consequently, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the present writ petitions. The Revenue was represented by its Standing Counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted permission to withdraw the writ petitions, given that their grievance has been redressed by an order passed under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that an order dated 20.05.2026 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-7, under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has resolved their grievance. Therefore, they prayed for the writ petitions to be allowed to be withdrawn. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the Revenue regarding the withdrawal of the petitions. However, the Revenue was represented by its Standing Counsel.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 220(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

W.P.(C) 6230/2026
W.P.(C) 2334/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~4 & 20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6230/2026 CM APPL. 30523/2026 CM APPL. 30524/2026 CM APPL. 30525/2026 20 + W.P.(C) 2334/2026 CM APPL. 11278/2026 CM APPL. 11279/2026 CM APPL. 11280/2026 VISAGE LINES PERSONAL CARE PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manuj Sabharwal, Mr. Rohit Gupta and Mr. Devvrat Tiwari, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 25(1), DELHI & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR % 26.05.2026

O R D E R

1.

Mr. Manuj Sabharwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has received an order dated 20.05.2026 passed under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-7, which redresses the petitioner’s grievance. He prays that the present Writ petitions be allowed to be withdrawn.

2.

Permission is granted. 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 30/05/2026 at 11:54:09

3.

The Writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.

4.

All the pending applications stand disposed of.

DINESH MEHTA, J

VINOD KUMAR, J MAY 26, 2026/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 30/05/2026 at 11:54:09

More judgments on Section 220(6)

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 220(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →