Case LawHigh Court › > v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ta...

> v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 7(1), New

High Court 26 Mar 2025 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
> v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 7(1), New
Date of order
26 Mar 2025
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In > v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 7(1), New, the High Court (2025) decided the matter under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act.

Decision: 4.The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

$~91 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 3794/2025 and CM APPLs. 17694-95/2025 M/S DABUR INDIA LTD .....Petitioner .....Petitioner Through: Mr. M. P. Rastogi, Mr. Kaushik, Mr. Shivam Malik, Mr. Ram Naresh, Mr. Shobit Jain, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7(1), NEW DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vipul Agarwal, Ms. Sakshi Sabharwal, Mr. Akshat Singh, Advocates. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIAO R D E R26.03.2025 % 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a show cause notice dated 18.03.2025 [impugned notice] issued by the Assessing Officer in remand proceedings which have been conducted pursuant to an order dated 29.03.2024 passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961[the Act]. The petitioner has already appealed the said order passed under Section 263 of the Act. The petitioner’s grievance in the present petition relates to the proceedings being conducted by the AO pursuant to the said order. The petitioner also apprehends that the demand would be created as a result of the said proceedings without considering all contentions as raised by the petitioner. 2. We are not persuaded to accept that any interference by this court is called for at this stage. The petitioner is at liberty to respond to the impugned notice, if not already done. 3.Needless to state that the learned AO shall consider the petitioner’s response and pass an appropriate order, after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. response and pass an appropriate order, after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. 4.The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Pending applications shall also stand disposed of. applications shall also stand disposed of. 5.All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved. VIBHU BAKHRU, J MARCH 26, 2025 K TEJAS KARIA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any
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