PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -10 vs. DABUR INVEST CORP.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the ITAT's order for AY 2012-13 was based on its previous orders for AYs 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16. Crucially, the Court referred to its own prior decision in ITA 493/2025 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi 1 v. M/s Dabur Invest Corp. Ltd.) dated 08.10.2025, which had dismissed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2015-16. In that prior decision, the High Court had relied on its earlier orders and the ITAT's consistent findings in favour of the assessee for multiple assessment years, from AY 2002-03 to AY 2023-24, concerning the 'Option Price Contribution' issue. The High Court had found no justification to entertain those appeals due to the persistent view taken and the absence of distinguishing facts, thereby upholding the principle of consistency. Applying the same reasoning and the principle of consistency, the present appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
What were the facts?
The appellant, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-10, filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. The ITAT's order for AY 2012-13 relied on its previous orders for AYs 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16. The appellant's counsel acknowledged that the Department's appeal against the ITAT's order for AY 2015-16 had already been decided by the High Court on 08.10.2025 in ITA 493/2025. The High Court had previously dismissed the Revenue's appeals in similar matters, citing consistency and the absence of distinguishing facts for the assessment years in question. The present appeal was filed with significant delays, which were condoned by the Court.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should entertain the present appeal filed by the Revenue against the ITAT's order for AY 2012-13, given the High Court's previous consistent decisions in favour of the assessee for subsequent assessment years and the ITAT's reliance on its own prior orders. Assessee's Contention: The assessee did not explicitly present arguments in this judgment. However, the High Court's decision implies that the assessee would have relied on the principle of consistency and the prior favourable judgments from the High Court and the ITAT. The fact that the Revenue's counsel conceded that there was 'hardly anything to argue' suggests the assessee's position was well-established. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, fairly pointed out that the Department's appeal against the ITAT's order for AY 2015-16 had been decided by the High Court in ITA 493/2025. In light of this prior decision, the Revenue's counsel indicated that there was 'hardly anything for him to argue' in the present appeal, implicitly acknowledging the binding nature of the previous High Court ruling.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2026 CM APPL. 28440/2026 [delay in re-filing]
Present application has been filed by the applicant-appellant seeking condonation of delay of 191 days in re-filing the instant appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 191 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
Application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 28439/2026 [delay in filing]
Present application has been filed by the applicant-appellant seeking condonation of delay of 172 days in filing the instant appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 172 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 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 30/04/2026 at 13:01:27
Application stands disposed of. ITA 344/2026
The present appeal lays challenge to the order dated 28.10.2024 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘H’, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „Tribunal‟) for Assessment Year 2012-13. 8. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Tribunal has relied upon its previous orders for Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-
Mr. Gaurav Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant fairly pointed out that the appeal filed by the Department against the order of the Tribunal for AY 2015-16 has been decided vide the order dated 08.10.2025 passed in ITA 493/2025 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi 1 v. M/s Dabur Invest Corp. Ltd.) and in light of the same, there shall be hardly anything for him to argue.
In the case of M/s Dabur Invest Corp. Ltd. (supra), this Court held thus:
“4. He has handed over a copy of the order in ITA 482/2019 and connected appeals. The same reads as under:
“1. We had taken note of the undisputed facts which had emerged from the record with respect to “Option Price Contribution‟ in our order of 08 April 2024. While passing that order, we had found and were apprised that the aforesaid question has been consistently answered in favour of the assessee right from Assessment Years [“AYs‟”] 2002-03 to AY 2023-24. 2. We had also taken note of the judgment rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ITAT”] itself dated 11 February 2021 yet again answering that question in favour of the assessee. Mr. Agrawal submits that the Revenue has filed an appeal against the aforesaid order bearing Diary No.796375/2021. 3. However, and in light of the view which has been taken persistently coupled with the appellants failing to indicate any fact 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 30/04/2026 at 13:01:27
or facet which may distinguish the AYs‟ with which we are concerned in this batch, we find no justification to entertain these appeals. We in this regard bear in mind the principles of consistency.
These appeals shall stand dismissed.”
In view of the submission made by Mr. Agrawal and the fact that the Tribunal has also relied upon its own order passed for the Assessment Years (AY) 2013-14 and 2014-15, as is noted from paragraph 70 of the impugned order and to maintain consistency, as no substantial question of law arises for consideration, this appeal is dismissed.”
In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal is dismissed.
DINESH MEHTA, J
VINOD KUMAR, J APRIL 28, 2026/sr
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 30/04/2026 at 13:01:27
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
