The Approving Panel has issued its order and s.144BA(14) says no appeal lies. Will a High Court actually stay a Panel order, and does the same bar stop the department from challenging a Panel order it dislikes?
It will entertain the writ, and on this occasion it stayed the Panel's order — but by consent, not on a contested application. On 17 December 2025 the Delhi High Court issued notice in two writ petitions directed against a single order of the Approving Panel dated 28 November 2025 under the General Anti Avoidance Rule, by which the reference made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3, New Delhi under s.144BA(4) dated 26 May 2025 had been upheld; and it directed that "In the meantime, by concurrence of ld. Counsels, the impugned order and the consequent assessment proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing" — the stay was therefore made on the concurrence of counsel on both sides, and the order is not authority that a contested stay would be granted. The striking feature is who filed the second petition: W.P.(C) 19105/2025 was filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Delhi against the same Panel order. Because s.144BA(14) binds "the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner and the income-tax authorities subordinate to him" as well as the assessee, and bars any appeal under the Act, the department is in the same position as the taxpayer: if it wants to impugn a Panel direction it must also go by writ.
Decided by the High Court (Prathiba M. Singh J and Renu Bhatnagar J (order of 17 December 2025); Prathiba M. Singh J and Shail Jain J (order of 4 December 2025)) on 2025-12-17, reported as W.P.(C) 18483/2025 with CM APPLs. 76643/2025 and 76644/2025, and W.P.(C) 19105/2025 with CM APPL. 79506/2025, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi; later orders in the same matters dated 27 April 2026 and 28 July 2026, by when W.P.(C) 3102/2026 had been added; no law-report citation traced. It bears on section 144BA, section 144BA(4), section 144BA(6), section 144BA(10), section 144BA(13), section 144BA(14), section 95, section 96, section 153 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny, Appeals and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
This is the clearest illustration available of how the s.144BA(14) bar works in practice. The Panel's direction is not a departmental order that the assessee alone must swallow; it binds the Commissioner and every authority under him, and it is unappealable by either side. The consequence for the taxpayer is that the Panel hearing is the last forum in which the facts can be fought, because a writ court will not retry them. The consequence for the department is that a Panel order that goes against it produces a departmental writ petition rather than an appeal, which is exactly what happened here — and a taxpayer facing a favourable Panel direction should expect it. Two further practical points. The Delhi High Court stayed not only the Panel's order but the consequent assessment proceedings, which is the relief to ask for, because staying the direction alone leaves the Assessing Officer free to frame an assessment under s.144BA(10). And the stay does not consume the Panel's own time: the Explanation to s.144BA excludes from the six-month period in s.144BA(13) any period during which the Panel's proceeding is stayed by an order or injunction of any court. Note finally the sequence, which is a lesson in itself: the reference was made on 26 May 2025, the Panel's order came on 28 November 2025, and the petition was filed and heard within days of it.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3, New Delhi made a reference under s.144BA(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 26 May 2025. By order dated 28 November 2025 the Approving Panel under the General Anti Avoidance Rule upheld that reference. Vedanta Holdings Mauritius II Limited filed W.P.(C) 18483/2025 in the Delhi High Court assailing that order. The matter was first taken up on 4 December 2025, when counsel for the Department sought an adjournment on behalf of the Additional Solicitor General; the petitioner asked that no assessment order be framed pursuant to the impugned order and no coercive measures taken in the meantime, and a statement was made on behalf of the Department that no steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned order till the next date. On 17 December 2025 the Additional Solicitor General informed the Court that the Department had itself filed W.P.(C) 19105/2025 against the same order dated 28 November 2025.
On 17 December 2025 the Court directed that both writ petitions be heard together, issued notice in both, fixed timelines for counter affidavits by 10 January 2026 and rejoinders by 27 January 2026, and ordered that "In the meantime, by concurrence of ld. Counsels, the impugned order and the consequent assessment proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing" (paragraphs 4 to 7). Nothing was decided on the merits. On 27 April 2026 the Court recorded that interim orders were to continue till further orders, and on 28 July 2026 the matters were listed for 30 September 2026.
The orders contain no reasoning on the merits. The 17 December 2025 order records at paragraph 3 the Additional Solicitor General's submission identifying the impugned order as the Approving Panel's order dated 28 November 2025 by which the Commissioner's reference under s.144BA(4) dated 26 May 2025 had been upheld, and that the Department's own petition had been filed against that same order; and it records at paragraph 4 the Court's conclusion that both petitions have to be heard together. The stay at paragraph 7 was made by concurrence of counsel on both sides.
In the meantime, by concurrence of ld. Counsels, the impugned order and the consequent assessment proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppIt will entertain the writ, and on this occasion it stayed the Panel's order — but by consent, not on a contested application. On 17 December 2025 the Delhi High Court issued notice in two writ petitions directed against a single order of the Approving Panel dated 28 November 2025 under the General Anti Avoidance Rule, by which the reference made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3, New Delhi under s.144BA(4) dated 26 May 2025 had been upheld; and it directed that "In the meantime, by concurrence of ld. Counsels, the impugned order and the consequent assessment proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing" — the stay was therefore made on the concurrence of counsel on both sides, and the order is not authority that a contested stay would be granted. The striking feature is who filed the second petition: W.P.(C) 19105/2025 was filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Delhi against the same Panel order. Because s.144BA(14) binds "the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner and the income-tax authorities subordinate to him" as well as the assessee, and bars any appeal under the Act, the department is in the same position as the taxpayer: if it wants to impugn a Panel direction it must also go by writ. This was decided by the High Court (Prathiba M. Singh J and Renu Bhatnagar J (order of 17 December 2025); Prathiba M. Singh J and Shail Jain J (order of 4 December 2025)) and bears on section 144BA, section 144BA(4), section 144BA(6), section 144BA(10), section 144BA(13), section 144BA(14), section 95, section 96, section 153 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as W.P.(C) 18483/2025 with CM APPLs. 76643/2025 and 76644/2025, and W.P.(C) 19105/2025 with CM APPL. 79506/2025, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi; later orders in the same matters dated 27 April 2026 and 28 July 2026, by when W.P.(C) 3102/2026 had been added; no law-report citation traced. This is the clearest illustration available of how the s.144BA(14) bar works in practice. The Panel's direction is not a departmental order that the assessee alone must swallow; it binds the Commissioner and every authority under him, and it is unappealable by either side. The consequence for the taxpayer is that the Panel hearing is the last forum in which the facts can be fought, because a writ court will not retry them. The consequence for the department is that a Panel order that goes against it produces a departmental writ petition rather than an appeal, which is exactly what happened here — and a taxpayer facing a favourable Panel direction should expect it. Two further practical points. The Delhi High Court stayed not only the Panel's order but the consequent assessment proceedings, which is the relief to ask for, because staying the direction alone leaves the Assessing Officer free to frame an assessment under s.144BA(10). And the stay does not consume the Panel's own time: the Explanation to s.144BA excludes from the six-month period in s.144BA(13) any period during which the Panel's proceeding is stayed by an order or injunction of any court. Note finally the sequence, which is a lesson in itself: the reference was made on 26 May 2025, the Panel's order came on 28 November 2025, and the petition was filed and heard within days of it. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Move immediately once the Panel's order issues. In this matter the order was dated 28 November 2025 and the first hearing was on 4 December 2025; the assessment is the next step and delay costs the stay.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3, New Delhi made a reference under s.144BA(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 26 May 2025. By order dated 28 November 2025 the Approving Panel under the General Anti Avoidance Rule upheld that reference. Vedanta Holdings Mauritius II Limited filed W.P.(C) 18483/2025 in the Delhi High Court assailing that order. The matter was first taken up on 4 December 2025, when counsel for the Department sought an adjournment on behalf of the Additional Solicitor General; the petitioner asked that no assessment order be framed pursuant to the impugned order and no coercive measures taken in the meantime, and a statement was made on behalf of the Department that no steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned order till the next date. On 17 December 2025 the Additional Solicitor General informed the Court that the Department had itself filed W.P.(C) 19105/2025 against the same order dated 28 November 2025. The matter was decided on 2025-12-17 by the High Court (Prathiba M. Singh J and Renu Bhatnagar J (order of 17 December 2025); Prathiba M. Singh J and Shail Jain J (order of 4 December 2025)). On those facts the High Court held as follows. On 17 December 2025 the Court directed that both writ petitions be heard together, issued notice in both, fixed timelines for counter affidavits by 10 January 2026 and rejoinders by 27 January 2026, and ordered that "In the meantime, by concurrence of ld. Counsels, the impugned order and the consequent assessment proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing" (paragraphs 4 to 7). Nothing was decided on the merits. On 27 April 2026 the Court recorded that interim orders were to continue till further orders, and on 28 July 2026 the matters were listed for 30 September 2026.
The orders contain no reasoning on the merits. The 17 December 2025 order records at paragraph 3 the Additional Solicitor General's submission identifying the impugned order as the Approving Panel's order dated 28 November 2025 by which the Commissioner's reference under s.144BA(4) dated 26 May 2025 had been upheld, and that the Department's own petition had been filed against that same order; and it records at paragraph 4 the Court's conclusion that both petitions have to be heard together. The stay at paragraph 7 was made by concurrence of counsel on both sides. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "In the meantime, by concurrence of ld. Counsels, the impugned order and the consequent assessment proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing."
It was decided by the High Court on 2025-12-17 and is reported as W.P.(C) 18483/2025 with CM APPLs. 76643/2025 and 76644/2025, and W.P.(C) 19105/2025 with CM APPL. 79506/2025, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi; later orders in the same matters dated 27 April 2026 and 28 July 2026, by when W.P.(C) 3102/2026 had been added; no law-report citation traced. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 144BA, section 144BA(4), section 144BA(6), section 144BA(10), section 144BA(13), section 144BA(14), section 95, section 96, section 153, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. On 17 December 2025 the Court directed that both writ petitions be heard together, issued notice in both, fixed timelines for counter affidavits by 10 January 2026 and rejoinders by 27 January 2026, and ordered that "In the meantime, by concurrence of ld. Counsels, the impugned order and the consequent assessment proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing" (paragraphs 4 to 7). Nothing was decided on the merits. On 27 April 2026 the Court recorded that interim orders were to continue till further orders, and on 28 July 2026 the matters were listed for 30 September 2026. It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny, Appeals and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section 144BA, section 144BA(4), section 144BA(6), section 144BA(10), section 144BA(13), section 144BA(14), section 95, section 96, section 153 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Prathiba M. Singh J and Renu Bhatnagar J (order of 17 December 2025); Prathiba M. Singh J and Shail Jain J (order of 4 December 2025). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Ask for a stay of the Panel's order AND of the consequent assessment proceedings, in those terms. That is the relief the Delhi High Court granted here — but note it was granted by concurrence of counsel, so do not present it to a court as an instance of a contested stay being allowed. Expect the department to be in the same position on an adverse direction. If the Panel goes against the Revenue, the s.144BA(14) bar means the Revenue's route is also a writ, and a taxpayer should be ready for that petition rather than assuming the direction is final. Do not treat a stay as a limitation defence. The Explanation to s.144BA excludes the period of a court stay from the Panel's six months, and clause (xi) of Explanation 1 to s.153 excludes the whole reference period from the assessment limitation. Prepare the Panel hearing as the last hearing on the facts. A writ court reviewing a Panel direction will be looking at jurisdiction and process, not re-deciding whether your arrangement lacked commercial substance.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. No court other than the Delhi High Court in these same petitions has considered this order. The citedby search on the doc id is empty. A name search returns ten results, of which the tax entries are all successive orders in the same connected matters: 4 December 2025, this order of 17 December 2025, 4 February 2026, 11 March 2026 (the Revenue's own petition), 13 March 2026, 27 April 2026 and 28 July 2026. That is the progress of pending litigation, not judicial treatment. The petitions were still pending when checked, with interim orders continuing; the latest traced order is of 28 July 2026. Nothing has been decided on the merits of the s.144BA Approving Panel direction, and the stay recorded on 17 December 2025 was granted by consent rather than on a contested application. Treat the entry as a record of interim orders in live proceedings. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
These are INTERIM orders in a live matter and decide nothing on the merits. The 17 December 2025 order runs to eight numbered paragraphs and ends at paragraph 8; the 4 December 2025 order runs to seven and ends at paragraph 7. I established both counts by having each order transcribed in full, from the cause title through to the signature line, rather than by asking how many paragraphs there were. Both orders carry the Delhi High Court's digital-signature footer recording the date and time of download from the DHC server, which a paraphrase would not. The 17 December order records the Revenue's own submission that W.P.(C) 19105/2025 "has also been filed against the same order dated 28th November, 2025 passed by the Approving Panel"; the order does not explain what part of the Panel's order the Revenue is aggrieved by, and I have not speculated. The coram changed over the life of the matter: 4 December 2025 before Prathiba M. Singh J and Shail Jain J; 17 December 2025 before Prathiba M. Singh J and Renu Bhatnagar J; 27 April 2026 before Dinesh Mehta J and Vinod Kumar J; 28 July 2026 before Dinesh Mehta J and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta J. A third petition, W.P.(C) 3102/2026 (also by the Assistant Commissioner), had been added by 27 April 2026. On that date the Court recorded "Interim orders to continue till further orders". On 28 July 2026 a two-day delay in filing a counter affidavit was condoned and the three matters were listed for 30 September 2026 — that is, after the date on which this entry was written, so the matter is pending and unheard on the merits. No law-report citation was traced. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
On 17 December 2025 the Court directed that both writ petitions be heard together, issued notice in both, fixed timelines for counter affidavits by 10 January 2026 and rejoinders by 27 January 2026, and ordered that "In the meantime, by concurrence of ld. Counsels, the impugned order and the consequent assessment proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing" (paragraphs 4 to 7). Nothing was decided on the merits. On 27 April 2026 the Court recorded that interim orders were to continue till further orders, and on 28 July 2026 the matters were listed for 30 September 2026.
TaxSphere, “Vedanta Holdings Mauritius II Ltd v CIT (International Taxation)-3 — an Approving Panel order under GAAR stayed by the Delhi High Court, with the Revenue filing its own writ against the same order”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/vedanta-holdings-mauritius-ii-approving-panel-direction-stayed-and-the-revenue-also-driven-to-a-writ/ (validity last checked 2026-09-09)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
My client has received a notice under Chapter X-A saying his arrangement may be an impermissible avoidance arrangement. What is the procedure from here, who actually decides, and can I appeal the decision?
The Commissioner has referred my case to the Approving Panel. What form does that reference take, what is the Panel obliged to do with it, and am I entitled to be heard?
A reference under s.144BA has been made in my case and months have gone by. Does the ordinary time limit for completing the assessment keep running while the Approving Panel sits on it?
My case is going to the Approving Panel. Who actually sits on it, what powers does it have over me, how long is its term, and can the six months it has to decide be extended?
