AI Insights
The case involves the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others as petitioners against Orange 78 Rule Olivaiier de Serrrs Paris (France) and another respondent. The core issue was the filing of special leave petitions which were significantly delayed. The Supreme Court heard the matter and decided to dismiss the petitions due to the gross delay in filing and also on merits, citing adherence to a precedent set in a similar case involving the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs. M.I. Limited.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714885 (SC)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Supreme court cases
Pronouncement Date
22-08-2025
Judgement Text
"ITEM Nos.21 + 52 COURT NO.5 SECTION IV-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 38044/2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-09-2024 in WA No. 1094/2024 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru] THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS ORANGE 78 RULE OLIVAIER DE SERRS PARIS (FRANCE) & ANR. Respondent(s) IA No. 197486/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING WITH Diary No(s). 38718/2025 (IV-A) IA No. 197971/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING Diary No(s). 38110/2025 IA No. 201260/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING Date : 22-08-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Raghavendra P Shankar, A.S.G. Ms. Madhulika Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Karan Lahiri, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Mishra, Adv. Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. Mrs. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv. For Respondent(s) : UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R There is a gross delay of 218, 210 and 380 days respectively in filing these special leave petitions. The reasons assigned for seeking condonation of delay are neither satisfactory nor sufficient in law so as to condone the same. Hence, the application(s) seeking condonation of delay is/are 1 Digitally signed by NEETU SACHDEVA Date: 2025.08.22 16:29:22 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified dismissed. Further, following the order dated dated 14.07.2025 passed by this Court in SLP (C) Diary No.27624/2025 [The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Vs. M/s M.I. Limited], these special leave petitions are dismissed on merits also. For ease of reference, order dated 14.07.2025 passed by this Court in SLP (C) Diary No.27624/2025 is reproduced as under - “Delay condoned. We dispose of these Special Leave Petitions by following the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by this Court in Deputy Director of Income Tax and Anr. vs. M/s Vodafone Idea Limited [SLP(C) Diary No.24154/2024], order dated 17.03.2025 passed in The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. vs. M/s Singapore Telecommunications Limited, Singapore and Anr. [SLP(C) Diary No.1816/2025] and order dated 23.05.2025 passed in The Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Anr. vs. M/s Communication Global Network Services Ltd. [SLP(C) Diary No.59272/2024]. For ease of reference the order passed by this Court in Deputy Director of Income Tax and Anr. vs. M/s Vodafone Idea Limited is extracted as Under: “Delay condoned. We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned senior counsel for the respondent on caveat. There is delay of 222 days in filing this Special Leave Petition. During the course of submissions, we realised that this petition is covered by the judgment of this Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of 2 Excellence Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. reported in (2022) 3 SCC 321, which has been followed in other cases also. When this fact was brought to the notice of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, it was pointed out that in similar matters, this Court has issued notice. The submission of learned senior counsel was also that there is a Review Petition pending before this Court and notice issued was in order. That is no reason for entertaining any subsequent matter having regard to the Explanation of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. At this stage, learned senior counsel for the respondent has brought to our notice order dated 23.04.2024 passed by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Review Petition (C) Diary No(s).35475/2023 etc. titled “The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. GE India Technology Private Limited Etc.”, whereby a three-Judge Bench of this Court had dismissed the said Review Petitions both on the ground of delay as well as on merits. In the circumstances, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed on merits following the aforesaid judgment/order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” Consequently, the special leave petitions are dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits. Pending application(s) shall also stand disposed of. (NEETU SACHDEVA) (DIVYA BABBAR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) 3 "
