Ita/209/2010 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Dsl Software Ltd

I o/o 14.OL.2OL1 2L-24 , Mr.sanjeev Sabharwal, [Advocate ][for the ][appellant']Mr.Ajay Vohra [and ][Ms.Kavita ]Jha, [Advocates ][for ][the]respondent. Present: +tTAs *No.209/2010, [210/2010, ][21112010 ][and ][21212010] * (Common Order) O ^ . lTAs No.2Ogl2010 [and 2:*ol2o:'0 pertain ][to the ][same ][assessment]year, i.e., assessment year 2004-2005 [and ][raise ][Same ][question' ][Two]appeals have been [filed ][simply ][because ][of ][the ][reason ][that ][by ][the]impugned order, the Tribunal [has decided appeal ][of ][the ][Revenue ][as]well as cross-objections [of ][the ][assessee. ][The ][Tribunal ][while ][deciding]the cases in favour of the [assessee ][has ][followed ][its ][earlier order ][in]respect of th.: same assessee [passed ][in ][assessment ][year ][2003-2004.]Against that order ITA 2lIl2O7O [is preferred. ][When ][we ][perused the]orders passed by the Tribunal [in ] [2II\20L0, ][w€ ][find ][that ][the]Tribunal had followed its earlier [orders ][passed ][in ][the ][case ][of ] Technology Limited. Against [the ][orders ][passed ][in the ][case ][of ] Technology Limited, lTAs [t24412009 ][and ][125012009 ][were preferred ][by]the Revenue, which were dismissed [in ][the ][following terms vide ][orders] ITAs No.2Og/2OLO, [27O/2O1'O, ][211/2070 and ][2L2/20LO] Page I of 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYACertify that the digital file andphysical file have been compared andthe digital data is as per the physicalfile and no page is missing. ? q' i dated 15.L2.200g. [The ][order dated ][15.12..2010 ][passed ][in ][lrAs] and [125012009 ][reads ][as ][under:]L244|2OO9 ,,The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal has followed itsdecision in [the ][case ][of ][btf ][vs. ][Binary ][Sematics, ] N o.293/Del/O5.decision in [the ][case ][of ][btf ][vs. ][Binary ][Sematics, ] N o.293/Del/O5. . on 1', December, [2009 order was ][passed directing]the learned counsel [to ][inform us whether any ][appeal ][was]that [judgment ][or not']preferred against Learned counsel [is not ][in ][a ][condition ][to ][affirm ][the]same even today. [ln ][these ][circumstances, ][we ][draw ][the]inference that [the ][aforesaid ][order was ][accepted ][by ][the]oepartment and [dismiss ][these ][appeals. ][However, ][in ][case]it turns out that [appeal ][was ][preferred against ][that ][order]and still [pending, ][the ][appellant ][shall ][be ][entitled ][to ][seek]'revival of these aPPeals'" Following the [aforesaid ][order, ][we ][dismiss ][these ][appeals ][on]identical terms and [giving ][the ][same ][liberty ][to ][the ][Revenue ][in ][these]appeals also. lnsofar as ITA 2:.2l2}:I} [is ][concerned, assessee ][is ] [Techno] Limited and therefore [this ][appeal ][shall also ][be ][governed ][by ][the]aforesaid orders dated [15.12.2009 ][which ][was ][in ][respect ][of ][this ][very]ASSCSSCC stKRl, J. /)Vr''uU I( M.L. MEHTA, J. JANUARY [L4,ZOLL] DE!' Page 2 of 2 ITAs No,2Og/2OLo, [270/20L0, ][2I7/2o7O ][and ][2!2/2O7o]