NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED FORMERLY KNOWN AS ALCATEL LUCENT INDIA LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/584/2025HC DelhiDLHC01001303202508 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 considered the writ petition as a representation on behalf of the petitioner. The Court directed the respondents to take a decision on the representation within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Any further action would be taken in accordance with the law. The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the petitioner's claim for refunds or the validity of the TPO's order. The primary decision was procedural, directing the respondents to process the petitioner's request within a stipulated timeframe.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nokia Solutions and Networks India Private Limited (formerly Alcatel Lucent India Limited), filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No. 1) to give effect to the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) dated March 1, 2018. The petitioner also sought the release of consequential refunds along with statutory interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, within four weeks. The petition was treated as a representation by the respondents, who were directed to take a decision thereon within twelve weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the order. Further action would be taken in accordance with the law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the Respondent No. 1 to give effect to the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer dated March 1, 2018, and release consequential refunds with statutory interest under Section 244A. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the respondent to implement the TPO's order and release refunds. No specific legal provisions or precedents were mentioned in the provided text for the assessee's arguments. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not explicitly state its contentions in the provided text. However, the court's direction to treat the petition as a representation and take a decision implies that the revenue was expected to consider the matter and act in accordance with the law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 244A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~ 46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 584/2025 NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED FORMERLY KNOWN AS ALCATEL LUCENT INDIA LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Mr. Nikhil Agarwal and Mr. Purv Medhira, Advs. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 16 1 & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Mr. Parth Samwal, JSCs and Ms. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Ms. Muskaan Goel, Mr. Himanshu Gaur and Mr. Nischay Purohit, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R %

08.09.2025 1. This application is filed with the following prayers: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to give effect to the order of Transfer Pricing Officer dated 01.03.2018, and release consequential refunds along with applicable statutory interest under section 244A within a period of 4 weeks;” 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 14:35:26

2.

In effect, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondent no. 1, to give effect to the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) dated 01.03.2018 and release the consequential benefits. 3. Suffice will it be to state that this petition shall be considered as representation on behalf of the petitioner and a decision thereon shall be taken by the respondents within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order as an outer limit. Further action, if any will be taken in accordance with law. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J SEPTEMBER 8, 2025 ss 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 14:35:26

More judgments on Section 244A

All 1,186 judgments and leading authorities on Section 244A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →