Godaddy.comllc v. Assistant Commissioner Ofincome Tax Circle 1(3)(1

$~85 * INTHEHIGHCOURT OFDELHIATNEWDELHI +W.P.(C) 7032/2025 & CM Appl No.31733/2025 GODADDY.COMLLC.....PetitionerThrough:Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Mr. SoumitGanguli and Mr. Sarthak Tripathi,Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(3)(1) .....RespondentThrough:Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SSC with Ms.Monica Benjamin, Easha, Advs. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R22.05.2025 1.Issue notice.2.Mr. Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing for therespondent, accepts notice. 3.The petitioner has filed the present petition praying as under:“a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directingthe Respondent/Ld. AO to pass the appeal effectOrder and grant the consequential refund of excessTDS, aggregating Rs. 71,57,73,620/- for AY 2016-17 to AY 2019-20 and AY 2021-22, which includesstatutoryinterestcalculatedupto31.05.2025,together with all up to date statutory interest u/s244A of the Act thereon until the actual date ofpayment, as the action of the Respondent/Ld. AO is unjust, arbitrary and against the provisions of theAct. b) Issue any other Writ, order or Direction whichthis Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in thefacts and circumstances of the case. c) To allow the writ petition with cost in favour ofthe Petitioner and against the Respondents” 4.The petitioner had filed its return of income under Section 139(1) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 [Act] on 29.09.2016 declaring a total income of₹93,23,40,477/-. The petitioner further claimed that an additional amount of ₹96,56,25,598/-, being income not chargeable to tax under the India–US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement , was also earned.Thepetitioner company is a tax resident of the United State of America.Thereafter, the petitioner filed its returns for the Assessment Year (AY)2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22.The returns filed by thepetitioner for AY 2016-17, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2021-22 were selected forscrutiny.Draft assessment orders under Section 144(C)(1) of the Act werepassed holding that the income which the petitioner claimed was notchargeable to tax was, in fact, chargeable under the Act as fees for technicalservices under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.The petitioner filed objectionsto the draft assessment orders before the Dispute Resolution Panel .However, the petitioner’s contentions did not find favour with the DRP, andthe final assessment order was passed. The petitioner appealed the finalassessment order before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal . Theappeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed by a common order dated01.01.2025. 5.The petitioner’s grievance is that appeal effect order has not yet beenpassed and therefore, the refund due to the petitioner has not been processed.6.Mr. Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue fairlystates that four months have elapsed since the date of the order passed by thelearned ITAT allowing the petitioner’s appeals, and that the appeal effectorders are required to be passed. 7.Accordingly, we direct the concerned authorities to pass appeal effectorders and process the refund due to the petitioner along with applicableinterest, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferablywithin a period of eight weeks from date. 8.The petition stands disposed of.The pending application is alsodisposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J MAY 22, 2025dr TEJAS KARIA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any