Ita/280/2016 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-1 v. Rajiv Gupta

$~*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI10+ITA 280/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1 AppellantThrough Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Senior StandingCounsel with Mr Anup Kesauri, Advocate, versusRAJIV GUPTA RespondentThrough Mr Satyen Sethi, Advocate.AND11.^ITA 281/2016PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)-1 AppellantThrough Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Senior StandingCounsel with Mr Anup Kesauri, Advocate.versus RAJIV GUPTA RespondentThrough Mr Satyen Sethi, Advocate. CORAM:JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARJUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUORDER %02.05.2016 CM 15257/2016 in ITA 280/2016 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. ITAs 280 and 281 of 2016 2. These are two appeals by the Revenue against the common order dated26^ October, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (TTAT')in ITA 5661/Del/2010 for the Assessment Year ('AY') 2002-03 and ITANo. 4890/Del/2010 for the AY 2003-04 respectively against the sameAssessee, 3. It is noticed that the Respondent Assessee was an employee of MGFAutomobiles Ltd. The Revenue's appeals against the common order dated28th June, 2013 passed by the ITAT in ITA Nos. 4212 and 4213/DEL/2011for the AYs 2004-05 and 2005-06 in the case of MGF Automobiles Limitedbeing ITA Nos. 13/2014 and 14/2014 were dismissed by this Court on 13'^August, 2015 holding in favour of the Assessee therein and against theRevenue. 4. The questions sought to be urged by the Revenue in the present Appealsconcern the framing of assessment under Section 153 A of the Act, They arecovered against the Revenue by the judgment of this Court in CIT v KabulChawla (2016) 380ITR 573 (Del). 5. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises. The appeals aredismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J VIBHUBAKHRU, J MAY 02, 2016/pkv