M/S SMEC INDIA (P.) LTD. vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 8

Judgment text excerpt

$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 23.01.2025 + W.P.(C) 9969/2019 M/S SMEC INDIA (P.) LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ved Jain, Mr. Nischay Kantoor, Ms. Soniya Dodeja, Mr. Divyansh Dubey and Mr. Govind Gupta, Advs. versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 8 .....Respondent Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC along with Ms. Zehra Khan, JSC, Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, JSC, Mr. K. Sri Aditya, Adv and Ms. Anauntta Shankar, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR JUDGMENT YASHWANT VARMA, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petitioner impugns the order passed by the Principal Commissioner dated 25 March 2019 and in terms of which it has proceeded to dismiss an application that had been instituted by the petitioner purporting to be under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, W.P.(C) 9969/2019 Signature Not Verified Page 1 of 10 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:28.01.2025 18:23:06 1961 1. 2. The dispute itself arose in the context of an amount of INR 4,75,00,000/- which was paid by the petitioner on account of reimbursement of expenses incurred by its Associate Enterprise and on which it had not deducted tax at source. According to the writ petitioner, it had at the time of furnishing its Return of Income 2 for the concerned Assessment Year3, namely, 2014-15 incorrectly proceeded on the assumption that since the aforesaid remittance was liable to be subjected to tax and no tax thereon had in fact been deducted, it would be liable to be disallowed by virtue of the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Proceeding on that premise, the petitioner had thus suo moto disallowed the same and added the remittance back in its computation of income. 3. Subsequently, and on what the petitioner desc