TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "A. Issue writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated 11.04.2025 and 14.11.2025 issued by the Respondent rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner for issuance of Form 3CL for FY 2017-18 (AY 2018-19), FY 2018-19 (AY 2019-20) and FY 2019-20 (AY 2020-21) and declining permission for disposal of assets acquired for development of scientific research and development facility; B. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent to grant and issue the necessary Form 3CL certificate in respect of Petitioner approved in-house research and development unit for FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20, corresponding to AY 2018-19, AY 2019-20 and AY 2020-21, respectively basis the documents already furn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid applications were rejected by the Department vide the Impugned Orders which are sought to be challenged in the instant petition. 4. All applications filed by the petitioner are in connection with recognition, approval, and expenditure in relation to its in-house Research and Development unit and the same have been submitted through the Bawal, Haryana R&D unit, establishing that all administrative filings in respect of the petitioner's R&D activities are routed through its Haryana office. 5. It appears that the present petition has been instituted before this Court only on grounds that the respondent-Department is situated in New Delhi. 6. This Court in The Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi 2026:DHC:1605., took note....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und of the respondent-authority, an arm of the union government, being situated within the jurisdiction of this Court, it was observed at para. 37-38: "37. Naturally, being the capital of the Country, various authorities and bodies having pan-India jurisdiction would be located within the jurisdiction of this Court. Merely because the decision making authority happens to be in Delhi, ought not to be the sole reason to entertain a lis in this Court. The decision, no doubt, may be passed in the national capital, but it is usually against persons situated outside Delhi; and even more importantly, for actions which took place beyond the borders of this Court. The act of giving a hearing in Delhi, or the passing of an order in Delhi, is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r to entertain a petition in the context of territorial jurisdiction and forum non conveniens. At para. 42 this Court observed: "42. It is the substance of the matter which the Court must consider in determining the connection with Delhi. An order being passed by an authority in Delhi is an unchanging constant. This static/uniform facet, which is unmoved by the nature of the lis, ought not to determine where territorial jurisdiction would lie." 10. In the facts of the instant case, there may be a part of cause of action which has arisen in Delhi, however, the same should not be the sole reason to entertain the instant petition. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. (2004....