Disposed¶23

Alibaba Cloud India LLP v. Assessmnet Unit Income Tax Department

Bombay HC17 Nov 2025WP/3961/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Alibaba Cloud India LLP; Income Tax Department; Assessment Unit; penalty order dated 28 April 2025; quashing; recovery restraint; CIT(A) appeal; expedite appeal within four weeks; stay of recovery; Rs.3 Crores paid in installments; refund with interest; no costs; compliance reporting 27 January 2026; Bombay High Court; Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction; Writ Petition No. 3961 of 2025; 15 December 2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of with direction to CIT(A) to decide the appeal from the Penalty Order dated 28th April 2025 within four weeks of communication of the order; refund of monies paid with applicable interest directed in the event the Petitioner succeeds before CIT(A); no order as to costs; matter listed for reporting compliance on 27th January 2026. ¶23

Alibaba Cloud India LLP vs Assessmnet Unit Income Tax Department — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the Penalty Order dated 28th April 2025 passed by Respondent No.1 should be quashed and recovery action in relation to the penalty restrained.

¶14

Court's answer

The Writ Petition was disposed of by directing the CIT(A) to decide the Appeal from the Penalty Order dated 28th April 2025 as expeditiously as possible and in any event within four weeks from the date of the order being communicated to the CIT(A).

¶21

Ratio / Principle

In the event the Petitioner succeeds before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) shall pass the necessary orders for refund of the monies already paid for seeking a stay of the impugned Penalty Order, alongwith applicable interest, if any.

¶22

Key takeaways

There shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶23
Though the Writ Petition was disposed of, it was placed on Board for reporting compliance on 27th January 2026.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (B. P. Colabawalla & Amit S. Jamsandekar, JJ.), Writ Petition No. 3961 of 2025, decided 15 December 2025: Alibaba Cloud India LLP had sought quashing of a Penalty Order dated 28th April 2025 passed by Respondent No.1 (Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department) and restraint on recovery. Finding that the Petitioner had already appealed to the CIT(A), had paid Rs.3 Crores in three installments (Rs.50 Lakhs by 21.07.2025; Rs.1.25 Crores by 21.08.2025; Rs.1.25 Crores by 21.09.2025) and had obtained a stay of the Penalty Order, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the CIT(A) to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible and in any event within four weeks of communication of the order, clarified that refund of the monies paid with applicable interest would follow if the Petitioner succeeded before the CIT(A), made no order as to costs, and placed the matter on Board for reporting compliance on 27th January 2026. The merits of the penalty were not decided by this Court.

¶1

70.wp.3961.25.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3961 OF 2025

¶3

Alibaba Cloud India LLP

¶4

.. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Assessment Unit Income Tax Department & Anr

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Himanshu Sinha, with Mr. Yash Varmani, Utkarsh Mittal, Kshitij Saxena i/b Trilegal, Advocates for the Petitioner.

¶9

Ms. Mamta Omle, Advocates for the Respondents.

¶10

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &

¶11

Digitally signed ANJALI by ANJALITUSHAR TUSHARASWALE ASWALEDate:2025.12.19 13:10:40 +0530

¶12

AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ. DATE: DECEMBER 15, 2025

¶13

P. C.

¶14

The present Petition is filed seeking to quash the Penalty Order dated 28^th April 2025 passed by Respondent No.1. Consequently, a direction is sought to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to initiate any recovery action in relation to the penalty imposed pursuant to the aforesaid Penalty Order.

¶15

We find that in the present case, the Petitioner, being aggrieved by the Penalty Order dated 28^th April 2025, has already preferred an Appeal before the CIT(A). In fact, for obtaining a stay of the recovery of the penalty

¶16

Page 1 of 3 DECEMBER 15, 2025

¶17

Aswale

¶18

70.wp.3961.25.doc

¶19

amount, the Petitioner has also paid a sum of Rs.3 Crores in three different installments as more particularly set out below:-

¶20

Rs.50 Lakhs	on/before 21^stJuly 2025
Rs.1.25 Crores	on/before 21^stAugust 2025 seee
Rs.1.25 Crores	on/before 21^stSeptember 2025

¶21

Considering that the Petitioner has already paid the amount of Rs.3 Crores and obtained a stay of the Penalty Order, and has also challenged the same before the CIT(A), we dispose of this Writ Petition by directing CIT(A) to decide the Appeal from the Penalty Order dated 28^th April 2025 as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of four weeks from the date of this order being communicated to the CIT(A).

¶22

It is needless to clarify that in the event the Petitioner succeeds before the CIT(A), then, he shall obviously pass the necessary orders for refund of the monies already paid for seeking a stay of the impugned Penalty Order alongwith applicable interest, if any.

¶23

The above Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

Page 2 of 3 DECEMBER 15, 2025

¶25

Aswale

¶26

70.wp.3961.25.doc

¶27

Though we have disposed of the above Writ Petition, we place it on Board for reporting compliance on 27^th January 2026.

¶28

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶29

[AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶30

Page 3 of 3 DECEMBER 15, 2025

¶31

Aswale

Alibaba Cloud India LLP v. Assessmnet Unit Income Tax Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alibaba Cloud India LLP v. Assessmnet Unit Income Tax Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jem and Associates vs Caparo Financial Solutions Limited

Narendra Singh Chawara vs Hemangini Kumari Prithvi Raj Singh Chawara

Farid Abdul Mohammed Merchant and Ant vs Nina Anwar Merchant and 20 Ors.

Sanjay Moreshwar Potdar vs National Faceless Assessment Center Delhi

Powerica Limited vs The Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income tax 3(4)

Shell India Markets Private Limited vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(4), Mumbai