INFOGAIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 10 1 DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/5455/2025HC DelhiDLHC01024239202509 September 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 court noted the revenue's submission that a refund of Rs. 2,81,62,059/- had been processed and directed that this amount be released to the petitioner within six weeks. Regarding the petitioner's contention that a higher amount was payable, the court made no finding. However, it directed that a breakup of the Rs. 2,81,62,059/- be provided to the petitioner within the same six-week period. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to revive the petition if it was not satisfied with the breakup provided. The specific issue of the exact amount of refund and interest as claimed by the petitioner was not adjudicated on merits, but the processed refund amount was ordered to be paid.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Infogain India Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking a mandamus directing the respondents (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another) to issue a refund of Rs. 1,58,00,000/- along with interest of Rs. 1,45,76,000/-. The petitioner contended that the respondents' action was unjust and arbitrary. The revenue, through its counsel, stated that a refund case for an amount of Rs. 2,81,62,059/- had been processed and would be paid. The court noted the petitioner's submission that a higher amount was payable but made no finding on this. The court directed that the refund be released within six weeks and that a breakup of the Rs. 2,81,62,059/- be provided to the petitioner within the same timeframe.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondents are liable to issue a refund of Rs. 1,58,00,000/- along with interest of Rs. 1,45,76,000/- to the petitioner, as per the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents' action in not issuing the refund was unjust, arbitrary, and against the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner calculated a higher amount as payable by the respondents. Revenue's Contention: The revenue stated that a refund for an amount of Rs. 2,81,62,059/- had been processed and would be paid. The revenue did not explicitly address the petitioner's specific calculation or the interest claimed.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~54 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5455/2025 INFOGAIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Ananya Kapoot, Mr. Utkarsh, Kumar Gupta, Mr. Sumit Lal Chandani, Advs. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 10 1 DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC, Ms. Nancy Jain, JSC, Ms. Madhavi Shukla, JSC, Mr. Anshuman Jindal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R % 09.09.2025 1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers: “A. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to issue refund along with up-to-date interest of Rs. 1,58,00,000/- along with upto date interest of Rs. 1,45,76,000/- as the action of the Respondents is unjust, arbitrary and against the provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961; B. Issue any other Writ, order or Direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; C. To allow the writ petition with cost in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents.” 2. Learned counsel for the Revenue states that the case of refund for an 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 17/09/2025 at 14:29:28

amount of Rs.2,81,62,059/- has been processed and the same shall be paid. If that be so, the same shall be released to the petitioner within six weeks as an outer limit. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per her calculation, a higher amount is payable by respondents to the petitioner. We say nothing on the said submission, except that breakup of Rs.2,81,62,059/- shall be given to the petitioner. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the break-up, liberty shall be with the petitioner to revive this petition as per law. 4. The calculation as directed shall also be given within six weeks. 5. The petition stands disposed of. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J SEPTEMBER 9, 2025 rk 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 17/09/2025 at 14:29:28

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →