ORAVEL STAYS LIMITED vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (TDS)-2, DELHI & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 9th March, 2026 + W.P.(C) 2932/2026 & CM APPL. 14140/2026 ORAVEL STAYS LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manuj Sabharwal, Advocate. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (TDS)-2, DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR JUDGMENT DINESH MEHTA, J. (ORAL) 1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner-assessee has challenged order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS-2), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellate Authority’) passed on 09.02.2026, vide which the petitioner’s stay application has been disposed of in the manner that subject to payment of 20% of the total demand, remaining demand shall remain stayed. 2. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Manuj Sabharwal appearing for the petitioner firstly invited Court’s attention towards the orders dated 31.03.2025 passed in petitioner’s own case (Annexure P-12 & P-13) for assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-2020, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NAVEEN KUMAR W.P.(C) 2932/2026 Page 1 of 4 Signing Date:13.03.2026 10:24:06 respectively and argued that the predecessor of the Assessing Officer himself had held the petitioner not to be in default and regardless of the fact-situation remaining the same, the Assessing Officer, this time has held the petitioner-assessee to be in default. 3. He then submitted that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench ‘E’ New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) vide its order dated 21.11.2025 in no ambiguous terms has held that in the present factual backdrop, the petitioner was not required to deduct tax and hence no disallowance could be made and in spite of th