+ W.p.(C) v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr

$~86 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 17561/2022HUAWEI INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD.....PetitionerHUAWEI INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD.....Petitioner .....Petitioner Through:Ms Kavita Jha, Sr. Advocate with MrHimanshu Aggarwal, Advocate. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. .....Respondents Through:Mr Vipul Agrawal with Ms SakshiSemwalandMrAkshatSingh,Advocates. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIAO R D E R%26.03.2025 1.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying asunder: “a) Issue a writ of certiorari or writ, order or direction in thenature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order ordirection under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of Indiaquashing: (i) Notice dated 15.04.2021 issued under section 148[as it existed prior to substitution vide Finance Act,2021, w.e.f. 01.04.2021, and now deemed to benotice under section 148A(b)]; (ii) Letter/ notice dated 27.05.2022 providing so-called“information”formingthebasisoftheimpugnedproceedingsundersection148/148A,pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Courtin the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal[2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC); (iii) Impugned order dated 27.07.2022 passed under section 148A(d) and consequential notice of evendate issued under section 148 of the Act;in the case of the Petitioner for assessment year 2014-15, andall actions/ proceedings consequential thereto.” 2.The principal contention advanced by the petitioner is that theimpugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961[the Act] was beyond the period of limitation. However, the learned SeniorCounsel appearing for the petitioner fairly states that the said issue does notarise in the present case.She, however, submits that the Revenue hasproceeded on an erroneous premise that the income received by the assesseeis chargeable to tax in India as royalty.She seeks leave to rely on thedecision in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd.v. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. : (2021) 432 ITR 471 SC and onthe strength of the said decision contends that the Revenue’s stand iserroneous. 3.A draft assessment order has been passed treating the income of thepetitioner as royalty and the petitioner had filed objections in this regardbefore the Dispute Resolution Panel, which have since been disposed of.The final assessment order dated 30.03.2024 has been passed under Section143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Act. In the given circumstances,we do not consider it apposite to enter into the controversy whether theamounts received by the petitioner are chargeable to tax under the Act asroyalty. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of. 4.We clarify that all rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.We further direct that in the event the petitioner files an appeal before theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, within a period of four weeks from date, thesame would be considered on merits uninfluenced by the question of delay. The interim orders passed by this court are also extended for a further periodof four weeks. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J MARCH 26, 2025/trClick here to check corrigendum, if any