Full Text
EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION (SOUTH), NEW DELHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pankaj Garg, Mr. Milind Garg, Mr. A.S.M. Tripathi and Ms. Mansi Batra, Advocates
Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing
Counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Junior Standing Counsel for Revenue
Mr. P.S. Singh, Advocate for R-3 - UOI W.P. (C) No. 7850/2017
EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION (SOUTH), NEW DELHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pankaj Garg, Mr. Milind Garg, Mr. A.S.M. Tripathi and Ms. Mansi Batra, Advocates
Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing
Counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Junior Standing Counsel for Revenue
Mr. P.S. Singh, Advocate for R-3 - UOI W.P. (C) No. 785112017
EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION (SOUTH), NEW DELHI ..... Petitioner w.P.(C) 784912017 & Connected matters Page 1 of3
2017:DHC:8842-DB
Through: Mr. Pankaj Garg, Mr. Milind Garg, Mr. A.S.M. Tripathi and Ms. Mansi Batra, Advocates
Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing
Counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Junior Standing Counsel for Revenue
Mr. P.S. Singh, Advocate for R-3 - UOI w.P. (C) No. 7852/2017
EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION (SOUTH), NEW DELHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pankaj Garg, Mr. Milind Garg, Mr. A.S.M. Tripathi and Ms. Mansi Batra, Advocates
Counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Junior Standing Counsel for Revenue
Mr. P.S. Singh, Advocate for R-3 - UOI JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
0/0 06.09.2017
W.P.(C) 7849120/7 & Connected matters Page 2 of3
2017:DHC:8842-DB
ORDER
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. w.P. (C) No. 7849/2017 & C.M. APPL. 32473/2017 (stay) W.P. (C) No. 785012017 & C.M. APPL. 32475/2017 (stay) W.P. (C) No. 785112017 & C.M. APPL. 32477/2017 (stay) W.P. (C) No. 785212017 & C.M. APPL. 32479/2017 (stay)
2. These writ petitions are not entertained at this stage because the Petitioner has not yet decided to challenge the order dated 3rd August 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal CITAT') in the Petitioner's own case for earlier Assessment Years CAYs'), i.e. 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 where the issue involved in these petitions was decided against the Petitioner.
3. Accordingly these petitions are disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to revive the challenge in these writ petitions after the Petitioner's appeal against the order dated 3rd August 2016 passed by the ITAT is filed and entertained by the Court.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.