top of page

[SC] SLP Filed by Income-Tax Department Dismissed on the Ground of Delay of 325 Days


In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-2 v. Boeing India (P.) Ltd.[i], the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (‘SC’) adjudicated a special leave petition (‘SLP’). The SLP filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-2 (‘petitioner’) against Boeing India (P) Ltd. (‘taxpayer’) was dismissed due to procedural delay. The SC found the petitioner’s justification unsatisfactory. The SLP originated from a judgment by the Delhi High Court (‘HC’), which addressed various disputes concerning the taxpayer under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) and held in favour of the taxpayer.

Brief Facts

  • The assessing officer (‘AO’) adjusted the income of the taxpayer concerning interest on outstanding receivables. The AO adjusted the taxpayer’s income, assuming interest should be accrued on the outstanding receivables.

  • The taxpayer contended in the HC that the company was debt-free and neither paid interest to creditors/ suppliers nor earned interest from unrelated parties.

  • The HC held that since the taxpayer did not incur any interest expenses or earn interest from unrelated parties, the question of imputing interest on receivables did not arise. Therefore, the adjustment made by the AO was deleted.

  • The second issue was related to the deduction of tax at source. The High Court determined that s. 195, which pertains to payments to non-residents, does not apply when the nature of the payment is classified as salary and tax has already been deducted under s. 192.

  • The petitioner filed an SLP against the HC’s decision, but there was a substantial delay of 325 days in the filing.


The SC reviewed the petitioner’s delay in filing the SLP. Observing a substantial delay of 325 days, the HC found the petitioner’s justification for this delay unsatisfactory. Consequently, the SC dismissed the SLP, highlighting the importance of adhering to timelines in legal processes.


The SC rightly dismissed the SLP due to an unjustified delay, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural timelines. This decision shows the importance of timely justice and procedural discipline.

End Note

[i] [2024] 158 214 (SC)

Authored by Nitish Solanki, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinion


bottom of page