Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
$~SB-1 to 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 161/2022 + ITA 162/2022 + ITA 165/2022 PETRONET LNG LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr Vishal Kalra and Mr Anil Kumar, Advocates. versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC with Mr. Anant Mann, JSC & Ms. Aditi Sabharwal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA O R D E R % 19.12.2025 CM APPL. 28556/2025, CM APPL. 28557/2025 & CM APPL. 28558/2025 (Exemptions) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The applications stand disposed of. REVIEW PET. 293/2025, REVIEW PET. 294/2025 and REVIEW PET. 295/2025 3. These review petitions have been filed seeking review of order dated 25.02.2025, whereby, this Court dismissed the appeals by stating in paragraph no.4 of the order as under:- 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 26/12/2025 at 12:05:12
“4. Insofar as question (iv) is concerned, although it was vehemently urged that this ground formed part of the memo of appeal that was presented before the Tribunal, we find no such contention having been either urged or addressed and which may have been recorded by the Tribunal. If it were the stand of the appellant that although such a contention was in fact addressed but the Tribunal has failed to record the same, the remedy clearly lies elsewhere. That cannot be a ground which we could possibly countenance or entertain.” 4. The submission of Mr. Vishal Kalra, learned counsel for the appellant is that, his plea before this Court was relatable to disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), which though was pleaded in the appeal by the appellant before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, was not considered. In this respect, he has drawn our attention to the submissions filed by the appellant before the Tribunal, wherein it is stated “without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the allocation of disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act should be allowed towards port, power and regasification undertakings.” 5. This Court while rejecting the appeals vide order dated 25.02.2025 has clearly observed, “If it were the stand of the appellant that although such a contention was in fact addressed but the Tribunal has failed to record the same. The remedy clearly lies elsewhere.” If that be so, surely the appellant shall be within its right to seek such remedy as available to the appellant. 6. On a specific query from the Court as to why such a remedy was not availed, Mr. Kalra would submit, since the appellant had filed review petitions, the same could not be availed. 7. Suffice to state, the observation made by this Court, is applicable to 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 26/12/2025 at 12:05:12
the appellant and as there is no apparent error on the face of the order dated 25.02.2025, we are not inclined to entertain the present review petitions. The same are dismissed. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J GIRISH KATHPALIA, J DECEMBER 19, 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 26/12/2025 at 12:05:12