High Court of Delhi · Procedural orders
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3 v. HERO MOTOCORP LTD. (SUCCESSOR OF M/S HERO INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.)
ITA 419/2026 ·
Revenue appeal dismissed on low tax effect; underlying merits not adjudicated.
1. FACTS OF THE CASE
Revenue appealed against Hero Motocorp Ltd. (successor of Hero Investments Pvt. Ltd.) in ITA 419/2026. The order records that the tax effect falls below the limits in CBDT Circular 5/2024 dated 15 March 2024 read with Circular 9/2024 dated 17 September 2024.
2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT
The Court acted on the recorded low-tax-effect submission. The order does not set out the underlying tax controversy, assessment year or a calculation of the monetary limit.
3. JUDICIAL DECISION
The appeal was dismissed on the stated low-tax-effect ground. No underlying tax merits were adjudicated.
4. OUTCOME
Revenue’s appeal ended; all pending applications were disposed of.
5. Expert Comments
AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.
Identify the actual disposal
The successor description identifies the respondent in this appeal. The Court does not determine any legal consequence of the succession or decide whether an assessment in a predecessor’s name was valid.
Source: PDF p.1
Separate appellate closure from tax merits
The result favours Hero Motocorp Ltd. (successor of Hero Investments Pvt. Ltd.) only in ending this Revenue challenge. The Court supplies no independent reasoning approving a deduction, deleting an addition or invalidating reassessment. For any substantive reliance, the underlying appellate decision and its facts would need to be examined separately.
Source: PDF p.1
Apply the recorded policy with its evidential limits
The order identifies both circulars but does not reproduce their full conditions or decide any exception. It therefore supports the recorded disposal, not a universal monetary-limit rule for other appeals. The assessment year and substantive statutory provisions remain unstated; assigning them from a filename or a neighbouring case would create unsupported facts.
Source: PDF p.1
Source and verification
Complete 1-page original reviewed; source bytes verified.
Original PDF: 1 pages · SHA-256: 79a9a421376cb65d3d3583493b13be60813b155b88e0d3abb9a8991772552fdd
Full original and all five panels re-reviewed on 21 October 2026.
Current law and subsequent treatment not independently verified.
Subsequent proceedings and current judicial treatment have not been independently verified.
AI disclosure and professional disclaimer
AI-assisted source review. Independent human approval is not represented.
General research only. Read the complete judgment and verify applicable law and subsequent treatment before reliance.
