GODADDY.COM LLC vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(3)(1)

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/7032/2025HC DelhiDLHC01032464202522 May 2025Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court directed the concerned authorities to pass appeal effect orders and process the refund due to the petitioner along with applicable interest, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order. The Court noted the Revenue's concession that appeal effect orders were indeed required to be passed after the ITAT's decision. The primary issue was the delay in implementing the ITAT's order. The Court did not delve into the merits of the original assessment or the ITAT's decision, focusing solely on the procedural non-compliance of not passing the appeal effect order. The ratio decidendi is that statutory authorities must comply with appellate orders promptly and that courts will intervene through writs of mandamus to ensure such compliance and prevent undue hardship to taxpayers.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Godaddy.com LLC, a US tax resident, filed returns for AY 2016-17 to AY 2021-22. Returns for AY 2016-17, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2021-22 were selected for scrutiny. Draft assessment orders proposed taxing income claimed as not chargeable under the India-US DTAA, treating it as fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii). The Dispute Resolution Panel upheld this, and final assessment orders were passed. The petitioner appealed to the ITAT, which allowed the appeals on 01.01.2025. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition before the Delhi High Court is the non-passing of appeal effect orders and consequential refund of excess TDS, aggregating Rs. 71,57,73,620/-, plus statutory interest.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent/Ld. AO to pass the appeal effect order and grant the consequential refund of excess TDS, aggregating Rs. 71,57,73,620/-, for AY 2016-17 to AY 2019-20 and AY 2021-22, including statutory interest, as the action of the Respondent/Ld. AO is unjust, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the Respondent/Ld. AO has failed to pass the appeal effect order and grant the consequential refund despite the ITAT allowing their appeals on 01.01.2025, causing undue delay and hardship. They seek a writ of mandamus to direct the passing of the order and release of the refund with statutory interest. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Revenue fairly concedes that four months have elapsed since the ITAT order and that appeal effect orders are required to be passed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 144(C)(1),Section 9(1)(vii),Section 244A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~85 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7032/2025 & CM Appl No.31733/2025 GODADDY.COM LLC .....Petitioner Through: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Mr. Soumit Ganguli and Mr. Sarthak Tripathi, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(3)(1) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SSC with Ms. Monica Benjamin, Easha, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R 22.05.2025

1.

Issue notice.

2.

Mr. Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondent, accepts notice.

3.

The petitioner has filed the present petition praying as under: “a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent/Ld. AO to pass the appeal effect Order and grant the consequential refund of excess TDS, aggregating Rs. 71,57,73,620/- for AY 2016- 17 to AY 2019-20 and AY 2021-22, which includes statutory interest calculated up to 31.05.2025, together with all up to date statutory interest u/s 244A of the Act thereon until the actual date of payment, as the action of the Respondent/Ld. AO is 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 01/07/2025 at 20:42:53

unjust, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Act. b) Issue any other Writ, order or Direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. c) To allow the writ petition with cost in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents”

4.

The petitioner had filed its return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [Act] on 29.09.2016 declaring a total income of ₹93,23,40,477/-. The petitioner further claimed that an additional amount of ₹96,56,25,598/-, being income not chargeable to tax under the India–US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [DTAA], was also earned. The petitioner company is a tax resident of the United State of America. Thereafter, the petitioner filed its returns for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22. The returns filed by the petitioner for AY 2016-17, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2021-22 were selected for scrutiny. Draft assessment orders under Section 144(C)(1) of the Act were passed holding that the income which the petitioner claimed was not chargeable to tax was, in fact, chargeable under the Act as fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The petitioner filed objections to the draft assessment orders before the Dispute Resolution Panel [DRP]. However, the petitioner’s contentions did not find favour with the DRP, and the final assessment order was passed. The petitioner appealed the final assessment order before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT]. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed by a common order dated 01.01.2025. 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 01/07/2025 at 20:42:53

5.

The petitioner’s grievance is that appeal effect order has not yet been passed and therefore, the refund due to the petitioner has not been processed.

6.

Mr. Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue fairly states that four months have elapsed since the date of the order passed by the learned ITAT allowing the petitioner’s appeals, and that the appeal effect orders are required to be passed.

7.

Accordingly, we direct the concerned authorities to pass appeal effect orders and process the refund due to the petitioner along with applicable interest, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from date.

8.

The petition stands disposed of. The pending application is also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J MAY 22, 2025 dr Click here to check corrigendum, if any 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 01/07/2025 at 20:42:53

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →