# VENKATACHALAM THANGAVELU vs ITO, WARD 70(1), DELHI

Court: Delhi High Court
Date: 2026-01-20
Citation: W.P.(C)-538/2026 2026:DHC:495-DB
Petitioner: VENKATACHALAM THANGAVELU
Respondent: ITO, WARD 70(1), DELHI

[Official PDF on Delhi High Court website](https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/75820012026CW5382026_152429.pdf)

## Judgment text (excerpt)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:-20th January, 2026. W.P.(C) 538/2026 & CM APPL. 2707/2026, CM APPL. 2708/2026 VENKATACHALAM THANGAVELU .....Petitioner Through: Ms Rano Jain and Mr. Venketesh Chaurasia, Advocates. versus ITO, WARD 70(1), DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC with Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR JUDGMENT DINESH MEHTA, J. (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by way of intimation dated 07.06.2013 under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’), a demand of Rs.12,28,508/- was raised against the petitioner because the credit of TDS which Kingfisher Airlines had deducted from the salary of the petitioner amounting to Rs.10,34,982/- was not given. 2. It is contended that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment dated 01.10.2024 of this Court rendered in W.P.(C) 13765/2024 Satwant Singh Sanghera v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further asserted that the respondent has recovered the substantial amount of s

https://niyam.ai/judgements/high-court/2026/january/venkatachalam-thangavelu-vs-ito-ward-70-1-delhi