CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS INDIA PVT LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI 1 & ORS.
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the impugned orders to the extent they required the deposit of 20% of the demand as a condition for granting a stay. The Court reasoned that the leeway granted in the CBDT circular, allowing for a lesser deposit, cannot be interpreted to mean that 20% must always be deposited. When the jurisdictional High Court has taken a view, authorities deciding stay applications under Section 220(6) are expected to grant a complete stay, as High Court judgments are binding. The Court found the PCIT's order requiring 20% deposit contrary to this principle. Recovery proceedings against the petitioner were stayed until the disposal of appeals. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Cadence Design Systems India Pvt Ltd, filed two writ petitions challenging an order dated 15.09.2025 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Delhi-1. This order effectively rejected the petitioner's request for a stay on demands for assessment years (AY) 2020-21 and 2021-22. The demands arose from disallowance of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOP) expenditure in assessment orders dated 27.09.2023 (AY 2020-21) and 23.12.2024 (AY 2021-22). The petitioner had filed stay applications under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relying on various judgments, including one from the Delhi High Court. The PCIT directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the disputed demand.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Competent Authority's order requiring deposit of 20% of the disputed demand is contrary to law and CBDT Circulars, particularly when the issue has been settled by the jurisdictional High Court? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order is contrary to law and CBDT Circulars dated 29.02.2016 and 31.07.2017. They contended that paragraph 4(B)(b) of the 29.02.2016 Circular permits a reduced deposit if an issue is decided in the assessee's favour by the jurisdictional High Court, whose judgment is binding. Therefore, requiring a 20% deposit is unjustified when the High Court has already ruled on the matter. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the Circular only allows the Assessing Officer discretion to direct a deposit lower than 15% or 20%, not a blanket stay. They submitted that some amount lesser than 20% could be deposited. Additionally, they noted that a Civil Appeal on the same issue is pending before the Supreme Court (Commissioner of Income Tax - V vs. M/s New Delhi Television Ltd.) and prayed against granting an interim stay.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2026
Both writ petitions filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India impugn the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT, Delhi-1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Competent Authority’), whereby the petitioner’s request for stay of the demand for assessment years 2020-21 & 2021-22 has been practically rejected.
Succinctly stated, the facts germane are that during the relevant assessment years, the Assessing Officer passed two separate assessment orders against the petitioner on 27.09.2023 (AY 2020-21) & 23.12.2024 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 06/05/2026 at 13:06:03
W.P.(C) 15099/2025 & W.P.(C) 15101/2025 (AY 2021-22), and raised demands in relation to disallowance of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOP) expenditure.
In the memo of appeal so also in the stay applications dated 31.10.2023 (2020-21) and 21.01.2025 (2021-22) filed under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’), the assessee relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. Lemon Tree Hotels Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2019] 104 taxmann.com 27 (SC) and various other judgments.
The Competent Authority passed the impugned order and asked the assessee to deposit 20% of the disputed demand.
Mr. Jolly, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the impugned order passed by the Competent Authority is clearly contrary to law and against Circulars dated 29.02.2016 and 31.07.2017 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (hereinafter referred to as ‘CBDT’). He invited Court’s attention towards paragraph No.4(B)(b) of the Circular dated 29.02.2016 and submitted that even as per the said Circular, if an issue has been decided in assessee’s favour by jurisdictional High Court, the requirement of deposit of 15% or 20%, as the case may be reduced appropriately.
Learned Senior Counsel further argued that an assessee cannot be asked to deposit even 20% of the disputed demand, where the issue has already been settled by the jurisdictional High Court, whose judgment is binding throughout the territorial boundaries and over all State authorities.
Mr. Anurag Ojha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department, on the other hand argued that the Circular only provides that an Assessing Officer can direct deposit of any amount lower than 15% or 20%, as the case may be and therefore, a blanket stay cannot be 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 06/05/2026 at 13:06:03
W.P.(C) 15099/2025 & W.P.(C) 15101/2025 claimed. In other words, he submitted that the petitioner be asked to deposit some amount lesser than 20% of the disputed demand.
He further stated that in any case, Civil Appeal No. 1564/2017 titled Commissioner of Income Tax - V vs. M/s New Delhi Television Ltd. on the very same issue arising from the judgment of the High Court of Delhi is pending before the Supreme Court and prayed that interim stay be not granted.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record including the Circular dated 29.02.2016. 10. According to us, the leeway granted in this circular which gives the impression that the Assessing Officer may ask the assessee to deposit a lesser amount than 20%, cannot be construed to mean that in every case the Assessing Officer or the Competent Authority shall ask the assessee to deposit 20% of the due demand. Once the jurisdictional High Court has taken a view, in normal circumstances, the Assessing Officer or the Competent Authority deciding an application under Section 220(6) of the Act of 1961 is supposed to grant a complete stay, because judgments of High Court are binding on all the authorities including, the authority deciding the stay application.
We, therefore, allow the writ petitions and set aside the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2) Delhi dated 21.05.2024 (2020-21) and 18.08.2025 (2021-22) so also the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the Competent Authority for both assessment years (2020-21 and 2021-22), to the extent they require 20% of demand pursuant to the impugned assessment orders dated 27.09.2023 (2020-21) and 23.12.2024 (2021-22) to be deposited as a condition for grant 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 06/05/2026 at 13:06:03
W.P.(C) 15099/2025 & W.P.(C) 15101/2025 of stay of remaining recovery.
Needless to observe that till disposal of the appeals, the recovery proceedings against the petitioner shall remain stayed.
The Assessing Officer to do requisite entry in Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) Portal.
The petitions stand allowed accordingly. All pending applications are also disposed of. DINESH MEHTA, J VINOD KUMAR, J MAY 4, 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 06/05/2026 at 13:06:03
More judgments on Section 220(6)
- Ramji Vaish, Allahabad vs ACIT, AllahabadITA 371/ALLD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed9 Jun 2026AY 2011-12
- Vijay Stone Product, Sonebhadra vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 4/ALLD/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
- Susi Charitable Trust, Khurda vs The Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption)…ITA 582/CTK/2025[2026-27]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2026-27
- Jayant Security and Finance Ltd, Indore vs ACIT Central-2, BhopalITA 91/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
- Jayant Security and Finance Ltd, Indore vs ACIT Central-2, BhopalITA 90/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2025AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026