Open Text Corporation India Private Limited ._ vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 5(1),
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the impugned order dated 26.09.2024, passed by the ACIT, was barred by time. The Court noted that the ITAT's remand order was dated 13.06.2014. As per the timelines prescribed under Section 153(2A) or Section 153(3) of the Act, the assessment order giving effect to the remand should have been passed within a specified period from the end of the financial year in which the ITAT's order was received. The Court found that the impugned order was passed after ten years from the remand order, with no explanation from the respondent for the delay. Therefore, the Court concluded that the order, being time-barred, could not be upheld. Consequently, the petitioner would be entitled to the refund along with statutory interest, subject to the outcome of the department's appeal against the ITAT's order (ITA No. 55 of 2016) pending before the High Court. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Open Text Corporation India Private Limited, is challenging an order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) for assessment year 2005-06. This order was passed pursuant to a remand by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 1451/Hyd/2010 dated 13.06.2014. The ITAT had remitted the issue of transfer pricing adjustments back to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for fresh consideration. The petitioner had submitted multiple letters to the ACIT/TPO to give effect to the ITAT's directions and release the consequential refund. The petitioner contends that the impugned order was passed after a delay of ten years from the ITAT's remand order.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the impugned order dated 26.09.2024, passed by the respondent-ACIT, is barred by limitation under Section 153(2A) or Section 153(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, considering the ITAT's remand order dated 13.06.2014? Assessee's contention: The assessee argues that the ACIT's order is time-barred as it was passed more than ten years after the ITAT's remand order, despite the strict timelines prescribed under Section 153 of the Act for giving effect to such orders. The assessee relies on decisions of the Delhi High Court in Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the Kerala High Court in Dr. R.P. Patel v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's arguments on this specific issue, other than noting that the department has filed an appeal against the ITAT's order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 153,Section 143(3),Section 254,Section 92CA,Section 10A,Section 234B,Section 154,Section 244,Section 244A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax Circle - 5(1),, Room No. 224, B-Block, 2nd floor. lT tower, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500004 email- hyderabad.dcit5. @incometax.gov.in TI{I] I{oN'I}t,T''I'HI] CFIIEF USTIC}] SRI APARESH KIJNTAR SINGFI AND 'I'HE T{ON'BLE SRI ItJ I(lEG.M.MOHIUDl)I ]\i Qrstr Heard Mr. Vishal Kalra, learned counsel appearing ftrr N[r. .\[.Naga Dcepak, Iearned counsel for the petitioner and NIr. Ii.Sudhakar Reddy, Iearned Senior Standing Counsel for lncomc T'ar l)e partment appearing flor thc respondcr.rt. ?. 'l'he prcscnt challenge is to the conscqucntial order datcd 26.(],9.2024, passed by the respondent- .{.ssistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Clcle-5(1), Hyderabrrd ([or short 'thc rcsponclcnt-r\CIT), in respect of the assessrnent year 2005- l)6 trpon rctnand bv the Income Tax Appellate 'l'ribunal, Bench Writ Petition No.37108 of 2024 I I1,c16.,,6.,t (for short 'the Il. ,\'f ), 11) l.'I'..\.\o.t-15 1/ll .t'd/2010 dated 13.0(r.2014. Conserluent to thc relicI allorvecl bv the ITAT, the asscssmenr ordcr undcr Section 143(3) ol the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the r\ct') clatcd 1-1. 10.2()08. rvas modified by treating the revised incomc o[ tlre petidoner as Rs.3,97,79,542/-, bt, dcducrins a sum of I I Its.j.-15,51,636,'- rorvards the relief allorved br rhc I'fA'f ot I
2 Rs.7,43,31,178/-, as per rectification order dated 1,3.02.2012, under Scction 154 r/w Secrkrn 143(3) of thc Act. T'he respondent- ACIT has computed the total tax and interesr rcfundable as Rs.4,09,49,631. /-.
Petitioner is a companlr engaged in soFtwarc devclopment. It filed its rcturn of income for the subject assessment year on 01.11.2025. The casc of the pctitioncr rvas refcrred to a Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) on 08.05.2006 tirr determining thc Arm's Length Price (r\LP) of thc international transactiorrs undertaken during the subject year. -l'hc l'PO uide order dated 31.03.2008, passcd undcr Section 92CA(3) of the Act, determined the ALP of the transactions pcrtainine to provisions o[ sofrware services at Rs.44,1 1,05,783/- anc'l conscquendv, computed the adjustmcnt at Rs.],01,11,161 / - undcr the respondent-AclT completcd the assessmcnt uide Ordcr dated 14.10.2008 under Section L43(3) of thc .\ct ^t ^ tot^l income of Rs.7,20,86,690/- as against the renrnrcd income of Its.9,61,490/-. The petitioner preferred an appcal bcfore the \ Scction 92CA of the Act. Consequent to the ordcr of the TPO, \
- { Comtnissioncr oI Income Tax (Appeals) (for short'the CIT(A)'), rvhich pardr, ailowed the issue pertaining to transfer pricing adjustrnent and ry-anted exemption under Section 10.\ of thc -\ct as claimed bv the peritioner in its rerurn, uide order dated 21.09.2()1[). Consequent thereto, the Assessrnent C)fficer modificd the ordcr passed under Secrion 1a3(3) ..lf the Act, i.ir.ing cffect to thc order passed by the CIT(A) derermining thc total reviscd inc()me of thc petitioner at Rs.7,10,57,050/-, ilde order darcd 3().1 t.1010. Petirioner carried the matter in appeal bcfore the l'f Yl' in l.'f.A.No.1451/Hyd/201,0 challenging thc transfcr price atljustment uphcld by the CIT(A) yide ordcr datcd 2l .()9.2()1( ). In the meantime, peritioner: deposited l{s.3.;1,i 2,06J ,/ t,ide cl.rallans at Ex.P.
Further refund amounr oI Rs.58. 19,2]!),/ pertaining to orher ycars rvas adjr"rs,red againsr demand raisecl bv thc respondent-AclT on various clates as alscr specificd in tl.rc <>rdcr dated 30.11.2010. The learncd ITA'l uirlc its order clated 1i 06.2014 partly allowed the appeal rvhereby thc issue of transfcr oricin.g adiustments rvas remittcd l>ack to the I tlie of .\O/'l'P( ) tor h:csh consideration. l
The relcvant portion of thc ordcr datcd 13.06.201-{, passed br. thc lcarned ITAT, is reproduced hereundcr: *17 .
With re[ercnce to quanrihcarion o[ risk ad jusrment, lrsscssce arrived at thc samc at 4.(t3o/o bascd on diifcrcncc in the avcrage prime lending rate and the averase bank rate. I},en though, wc cannot acccpt that the diffcrencc in primc lending rate an<l bank ratc has to bc considercd as risk adiustment, we are, howevcr o[ the opinion that 'I'PO should cxamine thc risk profiie of t[-re assessee and other comparablcs and arrive at appropriate risk adjustmcnt if it can bc quantified on any rcasonable basis. He is aiso directcd to see rvhcthcr asscssee has donc any risk adjustments in its or.vn 'l'.1).study. Thereforc, on negative working capital adjustmcnt as rvell as risk adjustment, the issue is restored to thc Fr-lc of the TPO, as selection of con'rparables werc also restorcd to thc filc oI thc TPO. TPO should examine thcse aspccts and trrive at reviscd ALP, after grvhg duc opportuniry to thc assessce. (iround No.1 1 is accordingly alowed lor statisticai purposcs.
Ground No.12 does not rcquirc any adiudication in vicrv o[ amendmcnt to Section 92C with rcference to variauon o[ 57o. Thercfore, thc same is rcjccted.
Ground No.13 pertains to levt' of intcrest under Scction 2348 on additional income arising due to 'l'.P. adiustmcnt. This issue is also required to [>e re-adjudicated b1' thc'fP() dcpending on the fact rvhether'l'.P. adiustments arc rccluircd or not. A.O/TPO is dirccted to give an o1:portunin'
( to the assesse(', takcs its objcctions and then consider: thc issue factually and lcgally. With thcsc directions, ground No.13 is considcrccl as lllowed For statistical purposes.
In the result, appcal of the assessee is allt>wcd for statisdcal purposcs."
Pctitiont'r sr-rbrnitted le ttcrs before the A()/'I'PO on different rlatc:; starting from 0(r.06.2017 till 13.09.2024 to gir.c effect to the directions of the learned ITAT and relcase the consequcntial re liu-rd. I)ctitioncr contends dtat after lapsc of ten long rears, thc r:espondcnt -\CI'l- passed the impugncd order dated 26.09.2( )2-1, unclcr Scction 254 r/w Section 143(3) of the ,\ct lor the srrlric:t asscssrnent vcar.
The irnpug recl order dated 26.09.2024 has been assai-led by the pctitioncr lir:.tlv on thc ground that the assessing officer was under a dun' to pass a draft assessment order in crse there is trans fer pri<:ine; r-,rriation.
As per Sccrion l+4C(2) o[ the Act, the assessee gers an opporrunifi, to t.ile his objections within 30 dar.s of such t r.ariation bcfrrrc thc l)ispure Rcsolution Pancl as wr:1l as before
6 I I thc Assessing Officcr. As per sub-section (3) of Section 144C, tl'rc Assessing Officer would complere thc asscssmcnt on the basis of the draft ordcr, if thc ASSCSSCC cit hcr intimates his acceptancc of the variation or does not raisc objection-. rvithin the time prcscribcd. Under sub-section (5) thereof, thc Disputc Resolution Panel could issue such direcrior.rs to the Asscssing Officer as it thinks fit for his guidancc to complete tire assessment in casc the assessee has raised an objecrion. Undcr sub-section (7) thcreof, it is open for thc Dispute lLesolution Panel to rnake further inquirie s or have such inquiries made Sub-section (8) thereot, recognizes tl-re wiclc powers of thc Dispute Rcsolution Panel to confrm, reducc or enhance the variadons proposed in the draft order subject to the lirnitation that it shall not set aside any proposcd variation or issuc anr' dilection under sub-section (5) for further cnquiry. lJnder sulr SCCUON (10) thereof, every direction issucd by the Disputc Rcsolurion Panel would be binding on thc asscssing officer \ ) Sub-scction (13) thcreof, further providcs tl.rat upon rcceipt o[ bcfcrre issuing thc directions made to hin-r in sub-section (5). I
- 7 the direccions issrred l>r' tl-rc Disputc Resolution I)anel unde r sub- section (5), the ,\sscssing Officcr shall in conformiry rvith the directions completc the assessment without providing any further opportunrtr- o I being hcard to the assessec.
It is sutrnrittcd that thc non-obstante clause in Scction 144C g;ir-cs overriding effect to the procedure an contained in the ,\cr. It is contended that the respondent did not follow this rrlnclatorv statuton, procedure prescribed unclcr Section 144C(l) rrf thc.\cr.
The scc.rncl srouncl on rvhich thc petitioner has assailed the impugnecl r,rder clarecl 26.09.2024, is that it is barred by Iimitation as it u as passccl atte r crpin' o[ ten years from the clate of pronounccmt'nt of thc ordcr dated 13.06.2014 b1 thc learned I I ITAT. In this resard, petitioncr has relied upon Section 153(2r\) of the Act, rvhicir providcs for rimc limit for passing of thc order grving effcct to rhc orcler passccl bv the I'IAT with a direction to decide thc: issrrc r[-esl'r. I
6
Lcarned counsel for the petitioner submits that rhe dme limit for passing of a fresh assessment order could at best cxpire within nvo ycars from the end of the financtal year in rvhich the crrdet unclcr Scction 250 or 254 of the Act is received. The rcspondcnt ought to have passed the appeal effect orders till 31 .03.2011 since the order of the ITAT was passed on 13.06.2t)
In this regard, he has reiied upon thc decision of a Coorclinatc Bcnch o[ tl-ris Court in M/s TNS India Private Lirnitcd v. Union of Indial.
Lcarned counsel for the petitioner has apart from that also taken a plca that the petitioner was rrot accorded a minimum of 30 dar,s' time bcfore passing of the order dated 26.09.2024 rt terms of Section 144C(l\ of thc Act. Eventually, he submits that thc rrnpugned order is bad in law on both grounds. 'I'hereiore, it mar- bc sct aside
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, asa conscquence, the original return filed by thc petitioncr for the asscssrncnt t.ear 2005 06 has to be accepted and refund claimecl ru r) !,a Ai l & Sil8,,i:0l9 dr.or) l0la)rl \
9 ro rhe rune ot Rs.7,80,308/ * the assessment ta\es paid and refunds of other asscssment years adjusted against rhe demand of assessment year 2005-06 har-e to bc refunded. In this regard, he has relied upc,n a decision of the Apex Court in the case o[ CIT v. Shelly Products2, rvhcrein it rvas held that in casc o[ failure of the authorirics to frarne a regular assessment after carlier assessmcnt was sct asidc or nullifled, the tar dcposited bv the asscssee by w,rt' of adr.ancc tar or sclf-assessment tax or tax deducted at source is liablc to bc rcfundcd to the assessee since its retention by revenue u,oulcl result in brcacl.r of Article 265 of the Constiturion c,f India, rvhich prohibits the leq- or collection of any tax except t,\, authorirv oI las'
I-earned cou:rsei has also refcrrcd to the dccision rendered by the Delhi Hish Court in Aricent Technologies (Floldings) Ltd. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax'. It is submitted that since tl're asscssing ofticer failed to pass any order and assessment wrthin rhe dme. thc asscssment bec:rme dme barred under Sectic,n 153 oirhe ;\cr and tl'rc income re,rurned b1, ) ) i J2ooll 129 Tuma. rTt (s() ' [202]l rS2a.xmann.csn 2t) (l)clr'ii
't :: l0:: the assesscc for the rclcr.ant asscssment year has to be accepted and conscquendy, any amount wirich was due to the assessee as refund for the prcvious asscssmcnt year was to be refunded along rvith intercst as applicablc.
()n bchalt of the respondent-ACl1', lcarned Scnior Standing Counscl for the Income Tax Department submitted tlrat thc lcan'red I'L'\-l t:irle orclcr dated 13.06.2014, allowed thc appeal of thc assessec for statistical purposes. The order giving cFfcct datcd 25.()9.202.1. \\ia s passed by the AO/TPO has reduceil acljustmcnt to 1ts.3,61,96,01,1 /-. ()n the basis of thc dated 2(t.09.202-l revising thc total income of Rs.3,97,19,542/- and arrivcd at Rs.,1,09,49,631 / . It is further submitted that as pcr Section 1l+C(l) o[ thc .\cr, the respondent-ACl'I passed order on 2(t.09.2()24, rvhich is a consequential order in conformin' with thc order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the AO/l'P( ) and not an asscssr-ncnt order ur-rlikc a draft assessmcnt order, which is rcqrrired to be shared rvith the asscssee as per the .i \ ,) Act. Tl-rc transfcr pricing ad)r-rstments have been rcduced to said ordcr, thc responclcnt-ACl'f passecl a coflsequential order
-----7'. ) , ::II:: Rs.3,61,96,01 | / - from Rs.7,07,47,647l- follorving thc directions of the lcamed I-t'Al'. It is further submitted that the AO/TPO uide pwportccl order dated 25.09.202.1 made an upu,ard transfer adiustmcnt to thc total inc<;mc oi t1-rc pctitioner pursuant to fhe directjons issucd by the learned I'I:\'l', rvhich resulted in refund of Rs.4.09 cror,:s uide consequential ordcr datcd 26.09.2024. Therefore, the glound raiscd bv the petitioncr rvith r:egard to thc uprvard transft:r td justment does not hold rvatcr. It is rciterated that since ordcr dated 25.09.2021, is nor an ordcr p'rsscd under Section 92CA of the Act, rvhich in turn is folkrrved bv thc 1>roccdure laid dou,n under Secrion 1,14C o[ thc ,\ct and having direct bearing on the consequential ordcr passed on 26.(19.2024, draft of the samc was not providecl to thc pctitioncr.
Counter-affidavit of the respor-rdcnr, howevcr, lrrils to givc an\r specific repl1. to the issue of lirnitrrtion raised bv thc petitioner in passing the impugned order dated 26.09.?.024. 16 In this resar:d, we may usefull1' refcr to the pror-isions of Section 153 of thc Act, rvhich provides for tirnc limit for :i12:: completion of asscssmcnt, rcasscssmellt and recomputadon. 1'he very pror.ision as regards thc timc limit to be adhered to b1, the AO/TPO pursuant to the r>rder of the learned ITAT rcmitting the mattcr to thc tllc oi tl-rc A() by partly allowing the appeal was the subjccr matter o[ considcration in the case of M/s. TNS lndia Private Limitcd v. Union of India (supra) rendered by 11 coordinate Bcnch o[ this Court. The qucstion therein was rvhcther thc conscquential order could havc becn passed by the ,\() bcvond thc prcscribed period of timc envisaged under Sectiorr lr3 o[ the Act and consequentially, whether after a remand is made bv dre ITrYI', allowing an appeal Section 153(2A)1 or uncler Scctior-r i53(3)5 of the Act. Learned Court, after analvzing thc provisions of sub-scction (2A) and l5.l-Tim€ limnfo.complcrionof .r\.ssm.nr, os\rssn,rnr.nd.(comp!t.rior. {(2A) NoNnhsa.dine rnlirhins conraincd in sub's..tion, {l), (1,{), (llr) and (2), in r.llion to rhe asscssmenr ye.. comm.n.ing on rhc I" d.y ofAp.il 1971, and .ny subscqucor .sscssm.nr rcrr- .. ord(. of frcsh ,ssessnrcnt i. pu.sua.cc of.n o.d.r undcr section 250 or scc.iotr 254 o. se.rion 26.1or se.dor ?('1. scti^q asrd. ot crn.ellins an lss.ss,rcnr. lrat bc niade a! 6y timc b.fo.e the crpiry olonr y€a. f.oo th. .nd of tht finzn.iil I.r. in uni.t rh. ,,rd.r und.r !€.non ?50 o. se.rio. 2t.l ir ..c.iv.d by rh. P.incip.l Chicf Cimdission.. or Chiet Coo,missiorc. o. P.in(inal Coon,issaon.r or c.mmissiong o,, as rhe case mry be, .hc order under seclioa 261 o. sccti.n 261 is pass€d br il'. Princi p,l Chi.f Com h i!\n,ner or Ch'€ a C.rm nri \riof,.r or Princi prl Cotu m isiion.r o. Commission r. -llJ NoNdhsrrnd,na rnrihrnA c(,n',,ncd ,n sub-sc.ron. (t). (lA) i.Ll (2), an orde, or a..sh rss€ssm.n( or fresh ordc. under scction ,2CA, zs th..rs. h.t b., in pu6ur.k ofrn ordo !nd.r rection-t50 o.2al o. sc.tn,o 263 o. section 2fl, seniog.sidc or..n..llin8.n assc.sm.nt, or .. ordcr undc. sc€rion 92C4, rs .h. crs. mrv be, mir-' b€ d.d. ar rn! tinre h.forc rh. .rpiry of.itr. nronrhs f.om ih. crd of .tc fin.n.i.l !..r i. ! hi.t rh. ord.. und.r s.ctir.n 250 or .ccin,d 5l as .r.ei!.d t v rhc P.in.ip.l Chicf Com missionc. o. Chicf Co'nmission.r or Pna.ip,l Cotu'ni\s(,n.. or Conmissnrrr o., 2s rhe ( ase nar b.. nrr ordc. undcr scction 261 o. s.c.ion 2()4 is Bsscd bv lh. P.in.ip.l ChiefCommGstune. or Ch'cfCommissn,ner or P.n.irrr Comn,issoncr., Cofrmissn,rft,s tl,e cas€ nrr bcl Itorid.d fia. (h&. d,c o.dcr under,..non 2j0 or sccrn,n l51i\ r..crrd b\ r[. l,ri.eiul Ch,crCo.rm,ssioncr or Chi.f Cohmission(r o.Prin.iP2lComm,ssn,ne.o.Comm,rsion..or.rs.hccr,.nrryh..rh.o.d.rund.rsrcti.26J,,.s..tion2(nisp.ssedt'rih€Prin.ipll Cni.rCommassioflcro.Chi.aComm',\'on.r6iPri,.'prlCommis''. dr .r Comnr'r\nner rs d,. cr.c m.r r,c on o. aficr rhc lsr d:r or \ in part, conscquential ordcr nccds to bc passed either under sub-section (3) of Section 153 of the r\ct and rhc dccisions rendcred br, thc l)elhi High Court in Nokia India rlP.) Limited v. Deputy Comrrrissioner of Income Taxo as also a dccision rcndcrecl bv thc High Court of I(crala in Dr. R.P.Patel, Hahneman Flouse, College Road, Kottayam v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circlc-l, KottayamT, arrivcd at a decision that the proceeclir,qs irnpugncd thercin werc drarvn beyond a period that is prest'ribeci under sr.rb section (2.\) otSection 153 of the;\ct 11 . In the instant case, the learned If'A'I'has, in thc order dated i3.06.2()1-,1, remitted the mattcr to thc \O/TPO to cxaminc tl-re lisk profilc of the asscssec and otlrcr (:ornp2rralrlcs and arrir.e at appropriate risk adjustment, i[ it can lrc <luanti(iccl at an)' reasonab le basis. For this purp()sc, thc tP() shoulcl cxarninc ar.rd arrive at revised ALP after sir,ing dur' ,:rpportr.rnin' to the asscssce. The challenge beforc the ITI\T to the ordcr I I dated 21.01).2010 of thc CIT@ was on thc question of transfcr pricing adjrtstnrcrrt uphcid b1, thc CI'f(r\). C)1ce r|t marrcr g,as i [20171 8, Tnrm]..ron, .te - \ lC \o aql.rr,,l lfi)r ( \r .t(('tt.d ,n C, ol.2oti
: : l4:: remitted to determine the ALP afrcsl.r, aftcr scrurinizing thc risk profilc of the assessec and other comparables and quantifu appropriatc risk adjustment, the asscssmcnr order giving effect to or the conscquential order gir,'ing ci[cct ro rhar, in an1, case, could have been passed rvithin thc rirnclinc prescribed under sub-section (2A) or sub-section (3) ol Section 153 of thc Act as per the understanding of the r\O/'l'P( ).
In the instant case. the nlatrcr u,as rcmittcd to thc AO/I'PO, by the learncd IT';\'I' bv ordcr dated 13.06.2014. As per the timeline prescribed undcr sub-scction (2r\) o[ Section 153 of the Act, it could have bcen passcd rritl'rin a period of one year from the end of tl-re financial 1'ear in ri,hich the order under Section 250 or 254 of the Act rvas rcceivcd and that can be till 31 .03.2016 counting one vcar pcriod tion-r thc cnd of thc financial year 2014-15 as per the pror.ision in forcc. Even as per sub-sccrion (3) of Section 153 o[ the Act, thc timeline of ninc months for giving effcct to the orclcr could be liotn the cnd of thc financial year in which rhe ordcr unclcr Scction 154 of the .\ct t'as reccir.cd.
:: I5:: 19 . I n tl'rc p,rt:sent case, going b1, chc perir>ds pr cscribcd unclcr sub-secLion (!lA) or sub-section (3) of Section i 53 oF the Act, the impugncd order has been passed after ten r.ears oI the ordcr of rcmand ')\' the lcarned ITAT dated I ).06.201 J i.e., on 26.09.2024 No explanation worth its claim is cr.idcnt from thc stand oi t t respondcnt in the counter-aff rd rvit to crplair.r rlrc rime lag olt ten years in passing the samc ordcr s'hcn strict dmelines arc prescribed under Section 153 of thc Act to givc c[f e ct t<; cithcr passing fresh assessment orclcr,'reasscssrnent orcler or to givc cffect to the order passed b1' thc I'l'rYf, In such cilcr.rmstances, the impugned order dated 26.()!).202-1, bein14 barrcd bv timc, cannot be upheld in the eve of las- As a rr:sult thcrcof, the petitioner would bc entitled to rcfund, alon.g rvith statutorv intcrcst, as per the rerurn of income filed 1,.,v it rvith the selt- assessecl ta::es paid by it and refund, if anr, [t>r orher asscssmcnt yearr adiusted against thc demand rarscd [l rhc relcvant assessmcnt year 2005-06. However, as inforrrrccl bv thc learr-rccl counsel for the revenue, the dcpartment has rriso gonc in \ ( appeal against rhc ordcr o[ the learned ITA'I datccl 13.06.201-l I I I I (
:: l6:: being I.T.A.No.S5 of 201 6, rvhich is pcnding bcfrrrc this Courr. As such, we are of the opinion that rcfund, if ar-ry, admissible to o12016. 20. Accordingly, the instant \X/rit Petition is disposccl o[. As a sequel, miscellancous pctitions, pcnding i[ anr, stand closed. Therc shali be no order as to costs. -M JAWAHAR REDDY A ANT REGI /ffRUE COPY// S CTION OFFICER .t To, H erabad, Telangana,
One CC to SRI M.NAGA DEEPAK, Advocate lOPUCl 3 One CC to SRI K.SUDHAKAR REDDY, (Sr SC FOR INCOME TAX) [OPUC]
Two CD CoPies. BSK BS The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax Circle - eio"i..)nd-liooi lr tower. AC Guards, Masab Tank' 500004 email- hyderabad.dcitS @incometax gov tn 1 Room No 224, B- 1 a the petitioner would be subject to the result of I.T.A.No.S5 I I @
$ e a i HIGH COURT DATED:2310912025 ORDER WP.No.37108 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS S f/i 31 ltl 2P5 P/ T a'1r a'f t) (, * cl 6 10l{ l
More judgments on Section 153
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2128/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 4558/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3228/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Zabuben Mepabhai Bharvad, Ahmedabad vs The PCIT - 1, AhmedabadITA 1233/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment… vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 3453/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shree Hanumant Steel Traders vs. Assistant CommissionerChhattisgarh · 1 Nov 2026
- V3 Enterprises PVT LTD vs. The State Of ApAndhra Pradesh · 1 Nov 2026
- Zenith Metaplast(P) Limited vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 1 Nov 2026
- Susmita Das vs. The Principal Commissioner CGST And Central Excise , Bhubaneswar Commissionerate,KhurdaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Saroj Kumar Mahanandia vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
