CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 4(2), DELHI & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/153/2025HC DelhiDLHC01000128202521 September 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the filing of physical copies of the modified returns on June 21, 2021, and electronic copies on October 5, 2021 (for AY 2015-16) and November 26, 2021 (for AY 2019-20) was not in serious dispute. The primary contention of the revenue was that these returns were filed beyond the three-month period. The Court was of the view that any such delay, if it existed, should be condoned or ignored, especially considering the Department was in the process of shifting to a new e-filing portal. The Court reasoned that a few days' delay should not be fatal to the petitioner's right to file a modified return. Consequently, the Assessing Officer was directed to process the petitioner's modified returns for AY 2015-16 and AY 2019-20 within one month from the date of the order, and to release any due refund along with statutory interest within one month of processing.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Cadence Design Systems (India) Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking a direction to give effect to its modified returns of income for Assessment Years (AY) 2015-16 and 2019-20, filed pursuant to a Bilateral Advance Pricing Agreement dated March 3, 2021. The petitioner contended that despite filing modified returns on June 28, 2021, and subsequent electronic copies on October 5, 2021 (for AY 2015-16) and November 26, 2021 (for AY 2019-20), the Assessing Officer had not processed them, resulting in a refund of approximately Rs. 5 crores being held up. The petitioner highlighted that the Assessing Officer had acknowledged the electronic filing for AY 2015-16 in an assessment order for AY 2016-17.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the modified returns of income filed by the petitioner for AY 2015-16 and AY 2019-20 should be processed by the Assessing Officer, notwithstanding the respondent's contention that they were filed beyond the prescribed three-month period. (Question of law and fact, concerning the procedural acceptance of modified returns). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the modified returns were filed within the stipulated time, or that any delay should be condoned due to potential confusion or technical lapses on the part of the respondents during the transition to a new e-filing portal. They relied on the fact that the Assessing Officer had acknowledged the filing of the modified return for AY 2015-16 in a subsequent assessment order. Revenue's Contention: The respondent-department argued that the modified returns were not processed because they were filed beyond the prescribed period of three months.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010001282025 + W.P.(C) 153/2025

CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manuj Sabharwal, Mr. Drona Negi, Mr. Manish Kumar, Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 4(2), DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC with Mr. V.K. Saksena, JSC & Ms. Hemlata Rawat, JSC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY

O R D E R %

21.09.2026 1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed as under: “a. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) to give effect to the modified return of income for AY 2015-16 [AnnexureP-1 (Colly.) and AY 2019-20 [Annexure P-2 (Colly.)] filed in pursuance of the Bilateral Advance Pricing Agreement dated 03.03.2021 (Annexure P-6) and issue directions for release / credit of refund claimed therein along with statutory interest to the bank account of the Petitioner”

2.

Mr. Manuj Sabharwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has filed modified returns for assessment years 2015-16 and 2019-20 on 28.06.2021, but the respondent-Assessing Officer has not processed the same in spite of numerous representations written by the petitioner. He contended that due to such approach of the Assessing Officer, petitioner’s huge refund of about Rs.5 crores is stuck with the respondents. 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 23/09/2026 at 11:22:43

3.

He submitted that the modified returns which were filed on 28.06.2021 were followed by electronic copies thereof which were filed on 05.10.2021 for AY 2015-16 and for AY 2019-20 on 26.11.2021. He further submitted that the electronic copy filed on 05.10.2021 has been admitted by the Assessing Officer while passing assessment order for AY 2016-17 on 25.01.2024, in which the Assessing Officer had accepted the factum of filing modified return on 05.10.2021. 4. Mr. Ojha, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent-department, on the other hand submitted that the petitioner’s modified returns were not processed, as the same were filed beyond the prescribed period of three months. 5. While reiterating that the modified returns were filed within three months, Mr. Sabharwal submitted that there may be some confusion or technical lapse on the part of the respondents, as they had moved to a new e-filing portal 2.0. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the fact that the petitioner had filed physical copies of the modified returns on 21.06.2021 for AY 2015-16 and AY 2019-20 is not in dispute. The fact that it had filed the same electronically on 05.10.2021 for AY 2015-16 and on 26.11.2021 for AY 2019-20 is also not in serious dispute. The only quarrel is that the modified returns were filed with some delay or beyond the period of three months, as contended by the respondents. We are of the view that such delay (if any) needs to be condoned or ignored, as the Department was in the process of shifting to a new e-filing portal. 7. That apart, even if there was a few days delay, it cannot be taken to be fatal to petitioner’s right of filing modified return. 8. We, therefore, allow the present writ petition and direct the respondent-Assessing Officer to process petitioner’s modified returns which have been physically filed on 21.06.2021 for AY 2015-16 and AY 2019-20 and e-filed on 05.10.2021 for AY 2015-16 and on 26.11.2021 for AY 2019-20 (or any other date as received by the respondents). The return so filed shall be processed 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 23/09/2026 at 11:22:43

by the Assessing Officer within a period of one month from today and due refund (if any) shall be made within a period of one month from processing the return so filed, alongwith applicable statutory interest. 9. Writ petition stands disposed of along with interlocutory applications.

DINESH MEHTA, J.

ADITI CHOUDHARY, J. SEPTEMBER 21, 2026/ck/bu

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 23/09/2026 at 11:22:43

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →