Delhi High Court
Qualcomm Technologies,Inc vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 9 February, 2022
$~59
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2476/2022
QUALCOMM TECHNOLOGIES,INC ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate.
versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE
INTERNATIONAL TAX 3-1-1 & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Puneet Rai, Advocate.
% Date of Decision: 09th February, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
The hearing has been done by way of video conferencing.
CM APPL.7108/2022
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 2476/2022
1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking TDS credit and refund
along with up-to-date interest for the Assessment Year 2013-14. Petitioner
also seeks directions to the respondents to process the returns of income,
pass appeal effect order, issue correct computation as well as issue refund
along with up to date interest.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
Signing Date:11.02.2022
13:43:21
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that even after completion of
the entire proceedings and despite specific, binding and favourable order
passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereainafter referred to as
'ITAT') on 1st July, 2019 for the year under consideration, no appeal effect
order has been issued by the respondents and the petitioner is being denied
legitimate TDS credit and refunds without any legal basis. In support of her
contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Article 265 of the
Constitution, the decision of the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd.
vs. Union of India, [1997] 5 SCC 536 and the decision of this Court
in Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, W.P.(C) 10373/2019.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the petitioner
addressed multiple letters requesting the respondents to issue the appeal
effect order and grant TDS credit and refunds to the petitioner. She,
however, states that said requests have not been considered by the
respondents till date.
4. Issue notice.
5. Mr. Puneet Rai, learned counsel for the Revenue accepts notice. He
states that certain TDS claims made by the petitioner are not reflected in the
Form 26AS statement.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the relevant
Assessment Year, the assessee had been incorporated as a subsidiary of
Qualcomm Incorporated and some of its vendors had erroneously deposited
the TDS of the assessee in the account of Qualcomm Incorporated. She
further states that this issue has been dealt with by the CIT(A) in its order
dated 21st September, 2017 wherein it has directed the Assessing Officer to
verify the facts and allow the credit of the TDS claimed if it is paid to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
Signing Date:11.02.2022
13:43:21
credit of the Central Government and not claimed by Qualcomm
Incorporated.
7. In view of the aforesaid direction of the CIT(A), this Court disposes
of the present writ petition with the directions to the Assessing Officer to
implement the aforesaid direction of the CIT(A) as well as to pass appeal
effect order and pay refund, if any, along with up to date applicable interest,
if any, to the petitioner/assessee for the Assessment Year 2013-14 within
twelve weeks.
8. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the Assessing Officer
so that directions passed by this Court as well as CIT(A) can be
implemented within the aforesaid time period.
MANMOHAN, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
FEBRUARY 09, 2022
AS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
Signing Date:11.02.2022
13:43:21
