Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
-h :ITA9QO/20i^^ PR. COMIVflSSIONER OFINCOME TAX,DELHI - 02
Appellant
Through Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Advocate.
Through Mr. Ved Jain with Mr. Pranjal Srivastava, Advocates.
. * ITA 90.1/20,17;
- PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI 02 Appellant
Through Mr. Rahul Raushik, Advocate.
•
BEST INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA (P) LTD Respondent
PR. COIS^ISSIQ^ROF INCOME TAX, DELHI - 02.... Appellant
: : ' : y Through Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Advocate.
'j';'"-,., , Respondent
JUDGMENT
1 Through Mr, Ved Jain with Mr. Pranjal
7. Srivastava, Advocates. + ITA 903/2017 -V; PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI - 02.... Appellant versus ITA 900/2017, 901/2017, Pagel ITA902/2017, 903/2017 iSt 904/2017 2017:DHC:8952-DB BEST INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA (P) LTD...... Respondent -• ------. PR.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI - 02.... Appellant: ' ••.r versus BEST CITY DEVELOPERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Resi^|ndent CORAM: • HON'BLEMR.JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA ORB ER % 30.10.2017 CM No.38779/2017 rexemption^ in ITA No.900/2ni[7] CM No.3878i/2017 (exemption^ inITA No.901/2017 CMNo.38783/2017 (exemption^ in ITA No.902/2017 CM No.38785/2017 (exemption^ in ITA No.903/2fl17 CM No.38787/2017Yexemption) in ITA No.904/2ni[7] j> Exemptions are allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM No.38780/2017 (delay in re-j51ingVin ITA No.900/2017 CM No.38782/2017 (delay iii re-filing^ in ITANo.901/2017 CM No.38784/2017 (delay in re-filing^ in ITANo.902/2017 CMNo.38786/2017 (delay in re-filing^ inITANo.903/2017 CMNd.38788/2017 (delay in re-filing^ in TTA No.904/2017 For the reasons stated in the applications, the applications are allowed. The delay inre-filing the appeals iscondoned; ITA 900/2017,901/2017, ' ' p _ ITA 902/2017, 903/2017&904/2017 fage^ y4' TTA No.9nn/2017. ITA No.901/2017. ITA No.902/2017, ITA Nn Qnm0i[7] <S^TTA No.904/2017 The additions under Section 153A assessment pursuant to search^made under Section 68 ofthe Income Tax Act, was directedto be deleted in these cases on an appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) urging that the CIT(A) erred in law. Revenue is in appeal before us under Section260A ofthe Inconie Tax Act. This Court notices that the ITAT followed the rule of Commissioner ofIncome Tax vs. Kabul Chawla, (2016) 380 ITR 573 (del.) decided for previous years - in respect of the same search assessment. The setting aside ofthe additions under Section 68 ofthe Income Tax by the ITAT was upheld in the Pr. Commissioner of Income offax vs. Best Infrastructure India (P.) Ltd, ITA 869/2017, decided on 13.10.2017. No questionofl^,therefo¥e, arises in these appe They are, consequently, dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J <r EVSACHDEVA,J