LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/13924/2024HC DelhiDLHC01067157202403 December 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to effect the refund in favour of the petitioner/assessee manually and complete the process within twelve weeks. The Court noted the submission by the revenue that a technical glitch prevented the refund processing and that manual processing was feasible if directed. The petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to file an application for revival of the petition in the event of any grievance regarding the amount refunded. The Court did not explicitly rule on the legality of the adjustment or the applicability of Section 245, focusing instead on facilitating the refund.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the adjustment of its income tax refund for assessment year (AY) 2010-11 with stayed/non-recoverable income tax demands for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2014-15. The petitioner sought the quashing of this adjustment and the issuance of the refund of INR 47.20 crores, along with applicable interest, which arose from an appeal effect order dated April 22, 2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner contended that this adjustment was made illegally and without following the mandatory procedure under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the adjustment of the income tax refund due for AY 2010-11 with stayed/non-recoverable income tax demands for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2014-15 was illegal and in violation of Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The adjustment was illegal and made without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 245 of the Act. Revenue's Contention: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent stated that due to a technical glitch, the refund could not be processed. He further submitted that if directed by the Court, the respondent could process the refund through a manual process.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 245

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13924/2024 LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Neeraj Jain, Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal, Saksham Singhal, Advs. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Senior Standing Counsel, Ms. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, JSC, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Mr. Himanshu Gaur, Ms. Muskaan Goel, Mr. Nischay Purohit, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R % 03.12.2025 1. This Petition has been filed with the following prayers: “(a) A writ and/or order and/or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction seeking quashing of the illegal adjustment of income tax refund due for assessment year 2010-11 with the stayed/ non- recoverable income tax demand for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2014-15; and (b) A writ and/or order and/or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction seeking directions for issuance of income tax refund of INR 47.20 crores [alongwith applicable interest] arising by virtue 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 06/12/2025 at 13:34:31

of appeal effect order dated 22.04.2024 passed by Respondent No. 1 for assessment year 2010-11 that is illegally adjusted with non-recoverable/ stayed tax demands for other assessment years without even following mandatory procedure provided under section 245 of the Act; and” 2. Mr. Abhishek Maratha learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent states because of a technical glitch, the refund could not be processed. 3. He states that if this Court directs, the respondent can process the refund through manual process. 4. Accordingly it is directed that the respondents shall effect the refund in favour of the petitioner/assessee manually and complete the process within twelve weeks. 5. The petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner in the eventuality the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the amount refunded to file an application for the revival of the petition. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J DECEMBER 03, 2025 RT 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 06/12/2025 at 13:34:31

More judgments on Section 245

All 62 judgments and leading authorities on Section 245 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →