In another judgement in the case of PCIT VS Nivesh Group, ITA 420/2024, dated 30.03.2026, Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that for the purpose of tax effect of an appeal filed by the department, it has to be seen from the consequential Assessment order passed by A.O., if already passed.
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Venkatachalam Thangavelu, WP (C) No. 538/2026 (20.01.2026) wherein has been held as under:
When the assessee had filed return for the Assessment Year (2012-13), admittedly, the petitioner’s assessing authority was at Delhi. That apart the day when the petition came to be filed, the Assessing Authority of the petitioner was at Delhi. Merely because subsequently, it has changed to Bangalore, he cannot be non-suited on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
Following the judgment of Satwant Singh Sanghera was held that the petitioner cannot be blamed for the non-deposit of the tax withheld by the deductor to the credit of the government. Therefore, the matter was set aside the demand and was directed to the AO to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner along with the interest u/s 244 within a period of 3 months.
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Zainul Rasheddin v. ITO, Ward 60(7), W.P.(C) 7453/2024 (dated 08.12.2025) dealt with the issue of factually incorrect information forming the basis of reassessment proceedings. The information received by the Assessing Officer pertained to Sh. Zainul Mohammad Rasheddin; however, the dissemination note discussed transaction details of M/s Jashan Sales Corporation, indicating an apparent factual inconsistency.
The Court observed that similar information was relied upon for Assessment Years 2017–18 and 2018–19. Notably, in the reassessment proceedings for AY 2018–19, the Assessing Officer, vide order dated 31.08.2024, had held that it was not a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Taking note of this and the submissions made, the Court held that there was no serious contest from the Revenue and that the impugned notice dated 18.04.2024 and order pertaining to AY 2017–18 deserved to be set aside. Accordingly, the Court quashed the notice and order relating to AY 2017–18.
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Tarun Sabharwal Through Attorney Holder Rajneesh Raheja v. ITO, Ward 72(2), Delhi, W.P.(C) 17966/2025 (dated 08.12.2025) dealt with the issue of recovery of tax demand from an employee in cases where tax was deducted at source (TDS) by the employer but not deposited with the Government.
The Court noted that as per CBDT Circular dated 21.09.2023, tax demand in such circumstances cannot be recovered from the employee. It was observed that the said circular clearly provides that when TDS has been deducted by the employer but not deposited, recovery should not be enforced against the deductee-employee.
The Court further directed that since the demand had been adjusted against subsequent assessment years, the Assessing Officer shall treat the present writ petition as a representation and decide it within eight weeks in line with the CBDT instructions and the judgment in Sanjay Sudan v. ACIT & Anr., W.P.(C) 6610/2019 (NC: 2023/DHC/001342).
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Square vision India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT, W.P.(C) 3291/2025, dated 08.05.2025, while dealing with department’s power to condone delay in filing of return under section 119(2)(b) observed that “ every statutory power is also coupled with a duty to exercise such power.”
There was a delay of only one day in filing return of income, as per the Petitioner, on account of some technical glitch, as part documents were filed within the time limit.
Hon’ble High Court in such circumstances held: that “In the present case, the petitioner’s inability to file the return would clearly fall within this category. Thus, the denial of relaxation of a single day in a case where the petitioner had already commenced the process of uploading the documents and its return, in our view, is unsustainable.”
Hon’ble High court observed:
“There may be myriad of technical reasons for the petitioner encountering such a problem, including technical glitch or human error at its end.”
https://ranojainlegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Asha-Gupta-Order-ITAT.pdf