G+ J INTERNATIONAL MAGAZINES GMBH vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT), DELHI- I, AND ANR.
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned orders dated 24 March 2022 (PCIT's order) and 19 December 2019 (assessment order). The Court found that the PCIT's view, that filing a Return of Income (ROI) is mandatory for claiming TDS credit, could not be sustained. The Court noted that it was not disputed that the petitioner's income was solely royalty income, making it not liable to furnish an ROI as per Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Furthermore, the Court agreed with the petitioner's contention that the credit for TDS is verifiable from the respondents' own records and does not depend on the filing of an ROI. The Court also acknowledged that the income itself had been examined. Consequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) was directed to duly verify the claim of TDS credit and take appropriate action in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, G+J International Magazines GmbH, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 264. The PCIT had refused to quash an assessment order dated 19.12.2019 for Assessment Year 2012-13. The petitioner sought a mandamus to allow credit for Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) amounting to Rs. 11,51,807 on royalty income of Rs. 88,95,504. The PCIT's order was based on the petitioner not filing a Return of Income (ROI). The petitioner contended that filing an ROI is not a prerequisite for TDS credit, as it is verifiable from the revenue's records. The case originated from a notice under Section 148 issued to an amalgamating company, which the petitioner claimed was neither served nor applicable to them. The assessment order was passed against the amalgamating company, and the petitioner subsequently filed objections and a rectification application.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax erred in refusing to quash the assessment order dated 19.12.2019, despite the petitioner's legal issues, concerning Assessment Year 2012-13 under the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to credit for Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) amounting to Rs. 11,51,807 on royalty income, even without filing a Return of Income (ROI), under the Income-tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that filing an ROI is not a prerequisite for claiming TDS credit, as such credit is verifiable from the respondents' own records. They also contended that their income was solely royalty income, for which filing an ROI was not mandatory under Section 139 of the Act. Furthermore, the initial notice under Section 148 was issued to an amalgamating company, which was not served on the petitioner. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, through the PCIT's order, contended that filing an ROI is a sine qua non for the Income Tax authorities to correlate claims and finalize refunds. The PCIT held that the claim for TDS credit is rendered invalid if not intimated through an ROI, and since the petitioner never filed an ROI, even against a Section 148 notice, the claim was rejected.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10707/2022, CM APPL. 31097/2022
G+ J INTERNATIONAL MAGAZINES GMBH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manu Giri, Adv.
versus
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT), DELHI- I, AND ANR.
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
O R D E R %
21.02.2024 1. This writ petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:- “(a) A Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus and Certiorari quashing the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by Respondent No.1 under section 264 to the extent that Respondent No.1 ought to have quashed the assessment order dated 19.12.2019 on the legal issues raised by the Petitioner for assessment year 2012-13 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (b) A Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 to allow credit of Tax Deducted at Source ("TDS") amounting to Rs.11,51,807 on Royalty Income of Rs.88,95,504 which has been assessed to tax in the hands of the Petitioner thereby allowing credit of such TDS of Rs.11,51,807 against the income tax demand raised amounting to Rs.9,16,239 excluding interest levied under section 234 of the Act; (c) A Writ of Prohibition or a Writ in the nature of Prohibition or any other Writ, Order or Direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing Respondents not to take any action in furtherance to the order under section 264 dated 24.03.2022 during the pendency of this petition; (d) To pass ad-interim orders in terms of prayer (b) above and· 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 26/02/2024 at 15:39:15
(e) To grant the Petitioner such further or other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 24 March 2022 which has refused to consider the claim of credit being accorded in respect of Tax Deducted at Source [“TDS”] on the ground that the petitioner had not filed a Return of Income [“ROI”]. While dismissing the revision, the Authority has held as follows: - “In light of the discussion, it is apparent that filing of a return of income is sine qua non for the Income Tax authorities to correlate the assessee's claim in the return of income in order to finalize refunds. Moreover, the assesee's claim of TDS credit is set at naught if it is not intimated to the tax authorities by way of filing of return of income. In the instant case, the assessee has never filed its return of income for the subject year. Pertinently, the case was reopened under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 due to the assessee's case being flagged in the Non-Filers Monitoring System ('NMS'). The assessee also did not file its return of income against the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has not attempted to file its return of income ever since the completion of assessment proceedings. Therefore, even through its conduct, the assessee has not demonstrated its intention of filing a return to claim a refund. It is trite law that no refund can be given without an assessee ever filing a return of income. Consequently, this ground of the assessee, as raised in the hearing dated 23.03.2022, is also rejected.” 3. For the purposes of disposal of the instant writ petition, we deem it apposite to notice the following facts. In terms of a letter dated 06 March 2018, the amalgamating entity was apprised of certain proceedings taken by the Assessing Officer [“AO”]. The aforesaid communication was followed by a Notice dated 27 March 2019 purporting to be under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”]. This notice too was addressed to the amalgamating company. 4. It is its case that the aforesaid notice was neither served on that 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 26/02/2024 at 15:39:15
entity nor for that matter on the present petitioner. The petitioner ultimately filed objections including those dated 14 December 2019 apprising the respondents that the amalgamating company was no longer in existence and consequently could not have possibly been called upon to file a Return. Detailed submissions were placed for the consideration of the respondents with that communication and which was again followed by a Letter of 16 December 2019. 5. The assessment is stated to have been completed on 19 December 2019 with the AO coming to conclude that an income of INR 1,77,91,008/- was liable to be taxed in the hands of the amalgamating company. This led to the petitioner filing a rectification application before the second respondent / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Since the aforesaid also did not find favor with the authorities, the revision came to be preferred before the first respondent / Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. 6. Before us, it is not disputed that since the only income which was earned by the petitioner was in the nature of royalty, it was not liable to furnish a ROI as per Section 139 of the Act. In any case and it was so contended that for the purposes of verifying the credit claimed in respect of TDS, the same is not dependent upon the filing of ROI. This since, undisputedly credit on account of TDS is in any case verifiable from the records maintained by the respondents themselves. Additionally, we find that this was not a case where the income itself had not been examined. In view of the aforesaid, we find ourselves unable to sustain the view as taken by the Revisional Authority. 7. We, accordingly allow the instant writ petition and set aside the impugned orders dated 24 March 2022 and 19 December 2019. 8. We, further direct the AO to duly verify the claim of TDS credit 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 26/02/2024 at 15:39:15
and to take appropriate action in accordance with law. 9. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of along with pending application.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. FEBRUARY 21, 2024/neha 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 26/02/2024 at 15:39:15
More judgments on Section 264
- Murugaiah Althuri, Chittoor vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, ChittoorITA 2100/HYD/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Babu Gundlapalle, Chittoor vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, ChittoorITA 2093/HYD/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Thasil Babu, Bengaluru vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 787/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Thasil Babu, Bengaluru vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 786/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Thasil Babu, Bengaluru vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Office…ITA 785/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Jack And Jill vs. The Union Of INDIA And OrsGauhati · 5 Nov 2026
- Ms Akher Ali vs. The Union Of INDIAGauhati · 5 Nov 2026
- Paonta Hp Centre vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 5 Nov 2026
- M/S Multitech Agro INDIA (Opc) PVT LTD vs. The State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 5 Nov 2026
- Gopa Satya Madhava Subbarao vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 5 Nov 2026