Case LawHigh Court › M/S Toshiba Corporation v. Commissioner...

M/S Toshiba Corporation v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Intl. Tax)-3, Newdelhi And Anr

High Court 30 May 2022 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
M/S Toshiba Corporation v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Intl. Tax)-3, Newdelhi And Anr
Date of order
30 May 2022
Assessment year(s)
2016-17
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In M/S Toshiba Corporation v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Intl. Tax)-3, Newdelhi And Anr, the High Court (2022) decided the matter.

Decision: 7.With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition and pendingapplication stand disposed of.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

$~35 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 8629/2022 & CM APPL.25939/2022 M/S TOSHIBA CORPORATION ..... Petitioner Through:Mr. Deepak Chopra and Mr. AnkulGoyal, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTL. TAX)-3, NEWDELHI AND ANR...... RespondentsThrough:Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate. %Date of Decision: 30[th]May, 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHANHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA MANMOHAN, J (Oral): J U D G M E N T 1.Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 5[th]May, 2022 directing the Petitioner to deposit 20% of the disputed amount aswell as order under Sections 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961[for short ‘the Act’] and the demand notice issued under Section 156 of theAct both dated 12[th]November, 2021 for the Assessment Year 2016-17.Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent to dispose of thePetitioner’s appeal expeditiously. 2.Admittedly, while deciding the stay application, the Assessing Officer W.P.(C) No.8629/2022 Page 1 of 2 and the CIT(A) have to consider three primary issues i.e. prima facie case,balance of convenience and irreparable injury. 3.In the present case, the petitioner has not claimed financial hardship.Accordingly, the third factor i.e. irreparable injury is not satisfied. 4.Consequently, this Court finds no ground to interfere with theimpugned order dated 5[th]May, 2022. 5.This Court clarifies that the benefit of the amount deposited by thepetitioner in pursuance to the order dated 5[th]May, 2022 shall not be given tothe three payees and the said pre-deposit amount shall abide by the finalorder to be passed by the Commissioner in the appeal. Needless to state that,in the event, Petitioner succeeds in its appeal, the Petitioner shall be entitledto refund of the entire amount deposited by it. 6.However, this Court directs the CIT(A) to dispose of the Petitioner’sappeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within six months fromtoday. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court alsoextends the time to comply with the order dated 5[th]May, 2022 for a periodof four weeks. 7.With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition and pendingapplication stand disposed of. MANMOHAN, J MAY 30, 2022AS MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J W.P.(C) No.8629/2022
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan