$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 08.10.2025 + W.P.(C) 15078/2025 CM APPL. 62033/2025 FERRA ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Mr. Nikhil Agarwal, Mr. and Mr. Nishank Vahistha, Advs.

versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1-3-1, DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal (Sr. SC) with Ms.

Sakshi Shairwal, Mr. Akshat Singh (Jr. SCs), Mr. Gaoraang Ranajn and Ms. Harshita Kotru (Advs.).

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR V. KAMESWAR RAO , J. (ORAL)

1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:

“(a) Issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the Impugned Section 148A(1) Notice dated 29.03.2025 as well as Impugned Order issued under Section 148A(3) and the Impugned Notice issued under Section 148, both dated 30.06.2025, and all the consequential proceedings.

(b) For such further and other reliefs, including costs of this Petition, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.

(c) Award the costs of this Writ Petition in favour of the Petitioner and against Respondents.

2. The challenge in this petition is primarily to a notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 148A (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and order under Section 148A (3) of the Act and notice under Section 148 dated

30.06.2025.

3. The submission of Mr. Kamal Sawhney, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a non resident company incorporated under the laws of Australia. During the Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21, the petitioner transferred its equity shares in Ferra Aero Space Pvt. Ltd. to Ferra U.K. for a consideration of ₹ 7,43,27,348/-. According to him, apart from the said share transfer, the petitioner did not undertake any activity in India during the concerned financial year.

4. He states that respondent issued the impugned notice under Section 148A (1) of the Act stating that the information from risk management strategy shows that the petitioner was involved in a financial transaction of ₹ 7, 43, 27,348/- and in the absence of return filed by the petitioner for the AY 2020-21, the taxability of the said transaction remains unexplained and accordingly the same suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. According to him, the petitioner filed comprehensive replies dated 06.06.2025 and 28.06.2025, wherein it was stated that the financial transaction stated in the impugned notice pertains to transfer of petitioner’s share in Ferra India to Ferra UK for the aforesaid consideration. He also states that a detailed computation of capital loss/gains arising from the said share transfer of ₹ 7,43,27,348/- was also submitted showing that the petitioner has incurred a long-term capital loss of ₹ 1,03,33,852/- and made a short-term capital gain of ₹ 39,49,342/- from the said share transfer. The said computation was prepared as per the provisions of the Act and the documents were submitted in compliance with the impugned notice as well as to show that the income arising in the form of capital gains from the said share transfer of ₹ 7, 43, 27,348/- does not exceed the amount of ₹ 50 lakhs and as such the invocation of provisions of Section 149(1) (b) shall not arise. 5. He also states that the order which has been passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 148A (3) of the Act is without referring to the documents filed by the petitioner along with the reply. He also states that Assessing Officer while rejecting the computation made by the petitioner in its reply to notice under Section 148A (1) of the Act, had reiterated the fact that the transaction of ₹ 7, 43, 27,348/- has to be examined, which according to him, is perpetuating the same illegality, which has crept in the notice under Section 148A (1) of the Act.

6. According to him, the Assessing Officer before issuing a notice under Section