Case LawHigh Court › Times Internet Limited v. Additional Com...

Times Internet Limited v. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range-9, New Delhi & Ors

High Court 09 Mar 2018 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Times Internet Limited v. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range-9, New Delhi & Ors
Date of order
09 Mar 2018
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Times Internet Limited v. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range-9, New Delhi & Ors, the High Court (2018) decided the matter.

Decision: With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of with the warning that in future costs may be imposed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 3384/2017 TIMES INTERNET LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through Mr. C.S.Aggarwal, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Ravi Pratap Mall, Advocates versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-9, NEW DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents ..... Respondents Through Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Sr.Standing counsel & Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Junior Standing counsel, Advocates CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR O R D E R% 09.03.2018 Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner states that the balance refund along with the interest @ 6% has been paid. This is an unfortunate case where an assessee had to file writ petition for refund of Rs.52.0 crores, which was withheld and was not being paid for technical reasons. Stand of the revenue was that because of merger/amalgamation, migration of PAN number was required before the refund could be processed and issued. This was/is an internal matter of the revenue, who have to maintain and upgrade software to deal with varied situations. Merger and amalgamation are normal and occur frequently. If required and necessary they should have upgraded their software. Otherwise refund should have been processed manually. Counsel for the revenue submits that due to delay they have paid interest @ 6 % per annum. It is stated that some refund was required to be adjusted. Petitioner has not objected to the adjustment but is aggrieved as money was withheld. It is further submitted that interest @ 6 % is much lower than the market rate and thus the petitioner assessee has suffered. We hope and trust that the respondent / revenue would take remedial steps and would ensure that such complaints are not made. Assessee should not be compelled to file writ petition to get refund. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of with the warning that in future costs may be imposed. SANJIV KHANNA, J MARCH 09, 2018 mw CHANDER SHEKHAR, J
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 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