Dismissed

Aecom Technical Services Inc. v. Income-Tax Officer Ward Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC15 Jan 2026W.P.(C)/4595/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition sought a NIL or lower tax deduction certificate under Section 197 for FY 2023-24. The Department pointed out the year had passed, rendering the petition infructuous; relief for a later year had already been granted. The Court declined an academic exercise and dismissed the petition as infructuous.

What the court decided

AI extract

Aecom Technical Services Inc. Vs Income-Tax Officer Ward Int Tax… — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~38

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4595/2024

¶4

AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC.

¶5

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manuj Sabharwal, Mr. Devvrat Tiwari and Mr. Drona Negi, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI & ORS.

¶8

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSC and Mr. Anugrah Dwivedi, Advs.

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 15.01.2026

¶12

Mr. Sunil Aggarwal, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent-Income Tax Department, at the outset submitted that the present petition has been rendered infructuous inasmuch as the order rejecting the prayer for issuance of certificate at NIL rate or lower rate under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’ ) was for the financial year 2023-24 (relevant to Assessment Year 2024-25).

¶13

He further submitted that even if the present petition is allowed as prayed, then also no relief can now be granted to the petitioner, as the certificate which is likely to be issued pursuant to the order of this Court would relate to financial year 2023-24, which period has since passed. He

¶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 19/01/2026 at 12:58:55

¶15

argued that such being the position, the Court should not enter into academic exercise.

¶16

Mr. Sabharwal on the other hand, submitted that the petition has not been rendered infructuous, as the petitioner had filed the petition well within time, which remained pending for two years, for which the petitioner cannot be faulted with.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court’s attention to the doctrine called ‘Doctrine of Mootness’ prevalent in the United States. 5. According to us, the relief as prayed by the petitioner even if granted cannot be of any use. The Court cannot enter into exercise of futility which would bring no result to the petitioner. More particularly when, for the subsequent period (financial year 2024-25), the petitioner has already been granted relief from this Court.

¶18

The doctrine which has been cited by the petitioner, may be prevalent in the United States but the same cannot be applied in the facts of this case, when the petition itself has been rendered infructuous and no deduction or lower deduction can be ordered to be made on the transactions which took place between the year 2023-24.

¶19

The petition is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous.

¶20

DINESH MEHTA, J

¶21

VINOD KUMAR, J

¶22

JANUARY 15, 2026/ ss

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 19/01/2026 at 12:58:55

Aecom Technical Services Inc. v. Income-Tax Officer Ward Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Aecom Technical Services Inc. v. Income-Tax Officer Ward Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srishti Kalra Vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (Ggsipu) & Ors.

Azeem Vs Jamia Millia Islamia through Its Hony Director Games and Sports Department Jmi New Delhi 110025 & O

Kajal and Anrs. Vs the Controller (Cd) DM S/W District and Anr.

M/S Amazon Distributors (P) Ltd. Vs Ajay Tiwari

M/S Taj Sats Air Catering Ltd. Vs Ram Phool

Goldtex Furnishing Indutries Vs UOI & Ors.

Sohan Lal Hans Vs Chairman Central Board of Direct Taxes & Ors.

Sunil Kumar and Others Vs Commissioner of Customs

Renu Nanda Vs UOI & Anr.

Sigma Corporation India Ltd. Vs U.O.I & Ors.

Rakesh Suri Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

Avery Dennison Corporation Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation, 1(1)(1), New Delhi & Anr.

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-1 Vs Colt Technologies Services India Pvt. Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 Vs Sri Lanka Cricket