WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) RANGE - 10, NEW DELHI & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/12007/2023HC DelhiDLHC01035978202302 August 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court noted that the principal addition of INR 23,86,70,11,218, made for inventory valuation under Section 145A, had been deleted by a subsequent rectification order dated November 28, 2023. Consequently, the petitioner had been granted substantial relief. Regarding the remaining additions, the Court accorded liberty to the writ petitioner to pursue the alternate remedy of preferring an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority. The Court explicitly stated that all rights and contentions of the respective parties on merits were kept open. The writ petition was disposed of subject to this liberty granted. No specific finding was given on the merits of the remaining adjustments.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Whirlpool of India Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an intimation/order dated August 19, 2023, passed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2022-23. The impugned order raised three adjustments totaling Rs. 731,27,80,680. The first adjustment of Rs. 2386,70,11,218 was made for inventory valuation under Section 145A, considering only the increase in profit and ignoring the corresponding decrease. The second adjustment of Rs. 8,89,001 pertained to leave encashment, where the entire disclosed figure was not considered. The third adjustment of Rs. 10,15,03,153 related to amounts allowable under Section 43B. Subsequently, a rectification order dated November 28, 2023, deleted the principal addition of Rs. 23,86,70,11,218.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the adjustment of Rs. 2386,70,11,218 made under Section 145A for inventory valuation, by considering only the increase in profit and ignoring the decrease, was erroneous? The petitioner argued that the net figure, which was Nil, should have been considered instead of the gross increase. The revenue's contention is not recorded. 2. Whether the adjustment of Rs. 8,89,001 concerning leave encashment was justified, given the disclosed figures in the tax audit report and the return of income? The petitioner contended that the entire amount disclosed should have been considered. The revenue's contention is not recorded. 3. Whether the adjustment of Rs. 10,15,03,153 regarding amounts allowable under Section 43B was correct, considering the disclosure in the tax audit report and actual payment? The petitioner argued that the entire amount was disclosed and paid. The revenue's contention is not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 145A,Section 43B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 12007/2023 WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Neeraj Jain, Mr. Aniket D. Agarwal & Mr. Saksham Singhal, Advs. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) RANGE - 10, NEW DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla & Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs , Mr. Sudarshan & Ms. Kavita Rani, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA O R D E R %

02.08.2024 1. This writ petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:- “a) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned intimation/ order dated 19.08.2023 passed under section 143(1) of the Act for assessment year 2022-23; or b) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, setting aside the impugned intimation/ order dated 19.08.2023 passed under section 143(1) of the Act and/or adjustments made therein for assessment year 2022- 23 and directing that the retuned income be accepted as it is, and consequential refund claimed in the return be granted forthwith along with statutory interest; c) grant interim relief, staying the impugned order including 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 16/08/2024 at 11:52:20

outstanding demand amounting to Rs.731,27,80,680 raised by the impugned order dated 19.08.2023 passed under section 143(1) of the Act, during pendency of the present petition; d) grant ad-interim ex-parte stay in terms of prayer (c) above;” 2. Bearing in mind, the arbitrary demand which had come to be foisted upon the writ petitioner, we had entertained the same even though it raised a challenge to the Section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] intimation dated 19 August 2023. 3. We note that in terms of the said intimation the following three additions were proposed:- a. Addition/ adjustment of Rs.2386,70,11,218 has been made considering only figure of “increase in profit” as extracted in clause 14(b) of Form 3CD for valuation of inventory as per section 145A of the Act and completely overlooking/ ignoring the corresponding figure of “decrease in profit” in the same clause; Respondent No.2 has, instead of considering the net figure, which is Nil, added the gross figure of “increase in profit”. b. Addition/ adjustment of Rs. 8,89,001/- has been made by not considering the entire figure of leave encashment disclosed in in clause 26 of the tax audit report amounting to Rs. 16,51,30,477/- corresponding with the figure mentioned in the return of income of Rs. 16,51,30,477/- and fictionally only considering Rs. 16,42,41,476/- as the amount paid towards leave encashment. c. Addition/ adjustment of Rs. 10,15,03,153/- has been made by alleging that the amounts allowable during the year under section 43B of the Act were reported in return of income at Rs. 10,58,24,838/- and Rs. 43,21,685/- in the tax audit report, without appreciating that the entire amount of Rs. 10,58,24,838/- was duly disclosed in the tax audit report and the actually paid during the year. 4. We are informed that subsequently, and in terms of a rectification order dated 28 November 2023, the principal addition of INR 23,86,70,11,218/- has been deleted. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petitioner has already been extended partial and substantial relief. 6. Insofar as the other additions are concerned, we accord liberty to the writ petitioner to adopt the alternate remedy of preferring 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 16/08/2024 at 11:52:20

appeal. All rights and contentions of respective parties on merits are kept open. 7. Subject to the aforesaid, this writ petition shall stands disposed of. YASHWANT VARMA, J RAVINDER DUDEJA, J AUGUST 2, 2024/sk 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 16/08/2024 at 11:52:20

More judgments on Section 145A

All 656 judgments and leading authorities on Section 145A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →