Delhi High Court Judgments — 2025

The Delhi High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed on account of low tax effect. The Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below the threshold limit of ₹2,00,00,000/- as stipulated in the Circular dated 17.09.2024 and was not covered by any exceptions. The reasoning is based on the administrative instructions provided by the circular, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals by the Revenue. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed threshold, without falling under any exceptions, are not to be pursued. No specific issue from the ITAT order was decided on merits.

The High Court found the petitioner's arguments unconvincing and held that the arbitral award did not warrant interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The court distinguished the present case from cited precedents regarding interest rates.

The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The reasoning was based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the Revenue itself, stating that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below the monetary threshold prescribed by the Circular dated September 17, 2024. As the appeal did not fall under any of the exceptions outlined in the circular, the High Court found no reason to proceed with the merits of the case. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No other issues were decided.

The High Court of Delhi dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The decision was based on the submission made by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below the threshold limit of ₹2,00,00,000/- as per the Circular dated 17.09.2024, and no exceptions applied. Consequently, the appeal was not pressed on merits and was disposed of solely on the ground of low tax effect. The ITAT's order dated 05.08.2009 was not examined on its substantive merits.

The tribunal held that the petitioner failed to establish use of 'REXCIN' as a trademark for pharmaceutical products, finding it was used only incidentally as a trade name. Consequently, the respondent was considered the bona fide prior adopter and user of its registered mark.