ZOMATO LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25(1) NEW DELHI & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/14586/2024HC DelhiDLHC01071000202413 October 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition. The Revenue, through its counsel, undertook to refund the amount of Rs. 61,78,85,780/-, which was determined as a refund for the petitioner for AY 2022-23 vide an order processed under Section 154 on September 22, 2025. The Revenue committed to completing this refund within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an application for revival of the petition if the order was not complied with within the granted time. The petitioner's counsel agreed to treat the petition as disposed of based on this undertaking.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Zomato Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. The Revenue, represented by Mr. Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel, submitted an email from the Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru. This email indicated that an order under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was processed on September 22, 2025, for Assessment Year 2022-23, determining a refund of Rs. 61,78,85,780/-. The email further stated that the refund, being above Rs. 1 lakh, required approval from the Assessing Officer/Range Head for release, which had not yet been received. The Revenue confirmed that the amount would be refunded to the petitioner within four weeks.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Revenue will refund the determined amount of Rs. 61,78,85,780/- to the petitioner within the stipulated period of four weeks, as requested by the Revenue's counsel. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner's counsel stated that the petition be treated as disposed of, implying acceptance of the Revenue's undertaking. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, undertook to refund the determined amount of Rs. 61,78,85,780/- within a period of four weeks. The Revenue also communicated that the processing of the refund was delayed due to pending approval from the AO/Range Head, as the refund amount exceeded Rs. 1 lakh.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 14586/2024 ZOMATO LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Adv with Mr. Deepesh Jain, Adv. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25(1) NEW DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC, Mr. Gibran, JSC, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Mr. Rishabh Nangia and Mr. Gibran, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R %

13.10.2025 1. Mr. Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue has placed before us a copy of trial mails received by him from the concerned Deputy Director of Income Tax, Unit-IV, CPC, Bengaluru. The relevant e- mail being of 09.10.2025 reads as under : “Sir. Please refer to the trail mails. I am directed by Principal Director of Income-tax, CPC, Bengaluru to communicate as under:- "In the aforesaid case for the AY 2022-23, ITBA-WS order u/s 154 was processed on 22-Sep-25 determining refund of Rs.61,78,85,780/-. As the refund determined is above Rs.1 lakh, approval of A.O./Range Head is required to be provided for releasing the refund but the 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 25/10/2025 at 12:15:12

same is not yet received in this case." ” 2. According to him, it has been decided to refund the amount Rs.61,78,85,780/- computed as on 22.09.2025 to the petitioner herein. If that be so, the same shall be refunded within a period of four weeks as requested by Mr. Rai as an outer limit. If the order is not complied within the time granted, liberty shall be with the petitioner to file an application for revival of the petition. 3. Mr. Vohra, Sr. Advocate states that the petition be treated as disposed of. 4. Petition is disposed of. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J OCTOBER 13, 2025 dd 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 25/10/2025 at 12:15:12

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →