Introduction
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.
Held
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.
Conclusion
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 taxmann.com 214 (SC)
Authored by Nitish Solanki, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinion
More Insights
24-07-2026
10
min read
‘Shylockian’ Lending is ‘Squeezing of Blood’: NCLT Moves Beyond Debt & Default to Reject a Section 7 Application
In a rare departure from the conventional debt-and-default enquiry under section 7 of the IBC, the NCLT, Kochi Bench rejected the financial creditors' petition after characterizing the underlying arrangement as a ‘Shylockian system’ of lending. This court ruling discusses Shylockian lending and examines the strength of the Tribunal's focus on the economic substance of the transaction against established legal principles governing admission under section 7 of the IBC.
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.
22-06-2026
8
min read
Claim Admission is not Debt Acknowledgement: Supreme Court on RP’s Role & Limitation under the IBC
Can admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act? In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, holding that claim admission during CIRP is merely a statutory claim-verification process and not an acknowledgement of debt. The ruling clarifies the RP’s non-adjudicatory role and reinforces important principles governing limitation under the IBC.