Law:

Section:

Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - High Court - Appeal to Where Tribunal passed impugned order relying upon two of its earlier orders which orders had been accepted by revenue and had not been challenged by filing appeal, appeal filed by revenue against impugned order was to be dismissed [Assessment years 1992-93 to 1995-96 and 1998-99] [In favour of assessee] CIT v. Realest Builders & Services Ltd. [2008] 307 ITR 200 (Delhi) Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Satish Panalal Shah [2001] 249 ITR 221 and Delhi High Court in CIT v.A.R.J. Security Printers [2003] 264 ITR 276 and for the reasons mentioned in I.T. Appeal Nos.1091/2006, 1115/2006 and 1098/2006,CIT v. Moonlight Builders & Developers [2008] 307 ITR 197 (Delhi) it was to be held that where the Tribunal passed the impugned order relying upon two of its earlier orders which primary orders had been accepted by the revenue and had not been challenged by filing appeal, the appeal filed by the revenue against the impugned order was to be dismissed. Sanjeev Sabharwal for the Appellant. P.N. Monga and Manu Mongafor the Respondent. JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the parties pray that these appeals to be taken on Board today because connected matters have been listed and have been disposed of by this court. 2. In view of the request of learned counsel we take these appeals on Board. 3. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated September 23, 2005, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench "G" in I. T. A. Nos. 3135, 629, 4760 and 1456/Del/1999 relevant for the assessment years 1992-93, 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1998-99. 4. We find from the perusal of the impugned order that the Tribunal has relied upon its earlier orders passed on June 14, 2003 (Re : DLF Commercial…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492