LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Sojitz Asia Pte. Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax), New Delhi & Ors.

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2026:DHC:7618-DBDecided 7 Sept 2026New Delhi Bench
W.P.(C) 7495/2026CNR: DLHC010241622026
Justice Dinesh Mehta · Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta

Background

The petitioner, a foreign company, earned interest income of Rs. 7,58,90,455/- reflected in its Form 26AS for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17, and duly paid tax on it. The deductor later revised its own TDS filing, shifting the very same amount into Form 26AS for AY 2018-19. Unaware that this was the same income already taxed, the petitioner paid tax on it again for AY 2018-19, effectively being taxed twice on one sum. After discovering the error, it spent roughly six years filing rectification applications and revision petitions, all of which were rejected on technical grounds, before finally applying under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act to file a belated revised return, which the tax department also rejected as time-barred and lacking "special circumstances."

Decision Breakdown

The Court held that the tax department's rejection was seriously flawed, being made to pay tax twice on the identical income is itself a "genuine hardship" and a clear special circumstance justifying condonation of delay. It found that the petitioner had acted with reasonable promptness at every stage and that the years of delay were largely caused by the department's own slow and repeatedly wrong redirection between remedies, not by any laxity of the petitioner. The Court quashed the rejection order, allowed the Section 119(2)(b) application, and permitted the petitioner to file a revised return for AY 2016-17 excluding the duplicated income, with the Assessing Officer directed to process it within three months.

Lesson Learnt

A taxpayer who has genuinely been taxed twice on the same income due to a data mismatch (such as a deductor revising Form 26AS) is entitled to seek a belated correction, and diligently, even if unsuccessfully, pursuing the wrong administrative remedy for years does not disqualify a person from relief once the real problem is identified.

Search on eCourtsView Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Tax & Customs Law

Tax & Customs LawSupreme Court of India

Mepco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld treatment of this subsidy as a taxable revenue receipt. It applied the purpose test: the scheme had to be read as a whole to determine whether the assistance supported capital investment or the running of an established business. Here, payment tracked actual electricity charges incurred in production and was not earmarked for plant, machinery, factory construction or repayment of capital borrowing. The scheme's broad aim of industrial development did not override those operative features, and payment after production began was relevant to the overall scheme rather than decisive by itself.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawDelhi High Court

M/S Kuku Overseas vs. Commissioner of Customs & Anr.

The Court found the petitioner's non-disclosure of the earlier adjudication order was material, since the core premise of the petition (indefinite non-finalisation) no longer held true once formal orders existed. It held the petitioner now had an effective alternate remedy, a statutory appeal under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, to raise all its arguments, including about delay, and declined to keep the writ petition pending just because a related Supreme Court case on delay in adjudication was ongoing. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable in its present form, with liberty to appeal.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawDelhi High Court

M/s Aparna Collection vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court rejected the argument that limitation under Section 74(2) must be measured from the date on Form GST DRC-01, because DRC-01 is only a summary of the show cause notice. On Section 74(10), the Court held that the statute requires the order, not the DRC-07, to be issued within the prescribed period, and that DRC-07 is a summary uploaded later under Rule 142. Because the petitioner had a statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107, and the questions raised needed factual findings, the Court declined to decide the merits in writ jurisdiction. The petitions were disposed of, with liberty to appeal under Section 107 and to raise all contentions there, including limitation and exclusion of the time spent in these proceedings.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawSupreme Court of India

Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax & Others v. Cadila Health Care Ltd. & Another

The Supreme Court dismissed the authorities' appeals and upheld the classification accepted by the High Court. It held that, under the statutory entries at issue, classification depended on the goods' form when sold, rather than what customers might later prepare with them. The beverage entry grouped beverages with syrups, cordials, juices and other liquid preparations, and did not expressly include powders used to make drinks. Packaging instructions and general tests of popular meaning or function could not expand that clear statutory description. Because the products did not fit the specific beverage entry, they belonged in the residual category; precedents involving differently worded entries or liquid products did not change that result.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawDelhi High Court

Zoom Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25(1) & Anr.

The Court dismissed the writ petition. Except for the assessment year, the facts were identical to the earlier case, and the Court held that judicial discipline required it to follow the Coordinate Bench's decision in the petitioner's own case. The Court did not accept the petitioner's reliance on an interim order in another company's case, and noted that the earlier judgment in the petitioner's own case was final. The earlier judgment also left it to the Assessing Officer to examine, after the notice is answered, whether the Rs 82 lakh amount is a spurious transaction.

Decided 1 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawDelhi High Court

Ms Devi Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner CGST Delhi South & Ors.

The High Court dismissed the petition. It held that the Commissioner could validly invoke Section 54(11), because an anti-evasion investigation was already underway when the impugned order was passed and the Commissioner had formed an opinion of fraud or malfeasance based on contemporaneous material. The Court held that the power to withhold refund is distinct from the adjudication and appellate scheme under Sections 73, 74 and 107, and that the absence of a statutory appeal does not bar judicial review. However, an appeal had already been filed before the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), so the Court declined to decide disputed factual questions and left all issues open before the GSTAT.

Decided 1 Oct 2026Read case