Quashed

Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited v. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 19(1), Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC11 Nov 2024W.P.(C)/9023/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition challenging a notice under Section 148 for reopening assessment was allowed. The court noted that the petitioner's contention regarding non-liability to deduct TDS had been accepted in separate proceedings, which were subsequently dropped. Consequently, the impugned notice was set aside.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice dated 25.04.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act in respect of AY 2018-19 is set aside.

Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited Vs the Assistant… — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~32

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9023/2022

¶4

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Vishal Kalra and Mr. S.S. Tomar, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 19(1), DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC, Ms. Monica Benjamin, JS, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSC and Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Adv.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 11.11.2024

¶12

The petitioner has filed the present petition inter alia impugning a notice dated 25.04.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act ) in respect of the assessment year (AY) 2018-19. The impugned notice was preceeded by an order dated 25.04.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act.

¶13

The Assessing Officer (hereafter the AO) had listed out certain transactions which entailed payment to foreign entities aggregating ₹58,37,22,743/-. Deductions as expenses in respect of the said payments were sought to be disallowed on the ground that the petitioner had not deducted withholding tax on the said remittances.

¶14

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 22:35:03

¶15

It is the petitioner’s case that the proceedings for failure to deduct tax at source under Section 201 of the Act were commenced separately. According to the petitioner, it was not required to deduct tax at source. The petitioner submits that this issue was examined and concluded in favour of the assessee in those proceedings. The conclusion of the concerned authorities militates against the reopening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Act for the said purpose. In this regard, this Court had, on 18.10.2024, passed the following order:

¶16

“1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 25.04.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act). The impugned notice has been issued on the basis that the petitioner would not be entitled to deduction of certain expense on account of nondeduction of Tax Deducted at Source (hereafter TDS).

¶17

It is the case of the petitioner that it was not liable to deduct tax in respect of the said payments. The petitioner further states that the petitioner’s contention has been accepted by the concerned Officer, who was considering the petitioners failure to deduct tax at source and the said proceedings have been dropped.

¶18

The petitioner has also produced an image of screen shot indicating the status of those proceedings.

¶19

Considering that the proceedings have been closed on determining that the petitioner was not required to deduct TDS, prima facie, the impugned notice is also required to be set aside.

¶20

Mr. Chawla, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue seeks time to take instructions in this regard.

¶21

List on 11.11.2024.”

¶22

Mr. Chawla, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue states, on instructions, that the impugned notice may be set aside as the contentions advanced by the petitioner have since been verified. It has been confirmed that the proceeding for not withholding tax have since been dropped.

¶23

¶24

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated 25.04.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act in respect of AY 2018-19 is set aside.

¶25

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶26

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

¶27

NOVEMBER 11, 2024 A

¶28

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶29

Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited v. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 19(1), Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited v. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 19(1), Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayaswal Necom Indsutries Ltd. & Anr. Vs UOI & Ors.

Kuldeep Kumar Singh Vs Apex Public School & Anr.

Manju Sharma Vs Apex Public School & Anr.

South Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Raj Kumar Kanahi Nursery & Anr.

Baljinder Kaur Sahdev Vs Greenfields Public School & Ors.

Izan Ahmad Vs South Asian University and Others

Mini Stanly Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ms. Muskan Malhotra. Vs the Commissioner of Police and Ors.

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 6 Vs Motherson Sumi Infotech and Design Ltd.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Tds)- 2, New Delhi Vs M/S Vipul Medcorp Tpa Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Cgst (Delhi South), Vs M/S Air France

Swati Saraf Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Rajiv Kumar Gupta Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Suruchi Saraf Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.