THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS ( INDIA) CO. PVT. LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court held that appeals against decisions of the ITAT shall lie only before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated. This principle applies even if the case has been transferred under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh v. ABC Papers Limited, which overruled previous Delhi High Court judgments to this effect. The Court found that the present appeals, arising from an assessment order passed by an officer in Gurugram, should therefore lie before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The appeals were disposed of on this jurisdictional ground. The Court also noted that the Revenue might be eligible for the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if they choose to file the appeal before the competent High Court.
What were the facts?
The appeals were filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central - 1 (Revenue) against an order dated January 30, 2026, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bench 'I', New Delhi. The proceedings originated from an assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurugram. The respondent-assessee, Huawei Telecommunications (India) Co. Pvt. Ltd., contended that the jurisdictional High Court for these appeals should be the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, not the Delhi High Court. This contention was supported by a Supreme Court judgment.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Delhi High Court has the jurisdiction to hear appeals against an ITAT order when the original assessment order was passed by an Assessing Officer situated within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, even if the assessee's case was transferred under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that jurisdiction for appeals against ITAT orders lies with the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated, irrespective of any transfer of the case under Section 127. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh v. ABC Papers Limited (2022) 9 SCC 1. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not dispute the position of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in ABC Papers Limited.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2026
The present appeals have been filed against the order dated 30.01.2026 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench „I‟, New Delhi (“ITAT”).
It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent-assessee 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 04/11/2026 at 11:26:58
that the proceedings arise out of the assessment order passed by the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurugram.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the jurisdictional High Court in the present case would be the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and not this Court. In support of this submission, learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh v. ABC Papers Limited, (2022) 9 SCC 1. Paragraphs 42 to 45 of the said judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:
“42. The power of transfer exercisable under Section 127 is relatable only to the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Authorities. It has no bearing on ITAT, much less on a High Court. If we accept the submission, it will have the effect of the executive having the power to determine the jurisdiction of a High Court. This can never be the intention of Parliament. The jurisdiction of a High Court stands on its own footing by virtue of Section 260-A read with Section 269 of the Act. While interpreting a judicial remedy, a constitutional court should not adopt an approach where the identity of the appellate forum would be contingent upon or vacillates subject to the exercise of some other power. Such an interpretation will clearly be against the interest of justice.
Under Section 127, the authorities have the power to transfer a case either upon the request of an assessee or for their own reasons. Though the decision under Section 127 is subject to judicial review or even an appellate scrutiny, this Court for larger reasons would avoid an interpretation that would render the appellate jurisdiction of a High Court dependent upon the executive power. As a matter of principle, transfer of a case from one judicial forum to another judicial forum, without the intervention of a court of law is against the independence of judiciary. This is true, particularly, when such a transfer can occur in exercise of pure executive power. This is a yet another reason for rejecting the interpretation adopted in Sahara [CIT v. Sahara India Financial Corpn. Ltd., 2007 SCC OnLine Del 1762 : (2007) 294 ITR 363] . 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 04/11/2026 at 11:26:58
For the reasons stated above, we hold that the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Sahara [CIT v. Sahara India Financial Corpn. Ltd., 2007 SCC OnLine Del 1762 : (2007) 294 ITR 363] and Aar Bee [CIT v. Aar Bee Industries, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2356 : (2013) 357 ITR 542] do not lay down the correct law and therefore, we overrule these judgments.
In conclusion, we hold that appeals against every decision of ITAT shall lie only before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the assessing officer who passed the assessment order is situated. Even if the case or cases of an assessee are transferred in exercise of power under Section 127 of the Act, the High Court within whose jurisdiction the assessing officer has passed the order, shall continue to exercise the jurisdiction of appeal. This principle is applicable even if the transfer is under Section 127 for the same assessment year(s).”
The above position has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue.
In view of the above, the present appeals would lie before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
Needless to add, benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, may be available to the Revenue, should it choose to challenge the impugned order before the competent High Court, subject to the applicability of the said provision in the facts and circumstances of the case.
In view of the above observations, the present appeals, along with the pending applications, stand disposed of.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
RENU BHATNAGAR, J OCTOBER 29, 2026/bs/ns 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 04/11/2026 at 11:26:58
More judgments on Section 127
- Radhakishan Potharajula, Karim Nagar vs ITO (Int Taxn)-2, HyderabadITA 2340/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Kishor Kumar Aggarwal, Gurgaon vs ACIT-Central Circle-30- Delhi., DelhiITA 2305/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Kishor Kumar Aggarwal, Gurgaon vs ACIT-Central Circle-30, DelhiITA 2304/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Chenna Narayana Chakka, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward 6(1), HyderabadITA 1944/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Chenna Narayana Chakka, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward-6(1), HyderabadITA 1943/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Radheshyam Bhoi vs. The Comnr. Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 2 Nov 2026
- Dharmajit Mishra vs. The Comnr. Of CT. And GST, OdishaOrissa · 2 Nov 2026
- Tapan Kumar Sahu vs. The Comnr. CT. And GST, OdishaOrissa · 2 Nov 2026
- Sanjeet Kumar Bagh vs. The Comn. CT. And GST, OdishaOrissa · 2 Nov 2026
- Rakesh Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 2 Nov 2026
