Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) -Iii, Newdelhi v. Parnod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd

$~6 to 10 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA 46/2017 & CM No.2432/2017+ITA 47/2017 & CM No.2433/2017+ITA 48/2017 & CM No.2439/2017+ITA 50/2017 & CM No.2440/2017+ITA 51/2017 & CM No.2441/2017 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) -III, NEWDELHI..... Appellant Through:Mr. Arun Khatri, Advocate. Versus PARNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... RespondentThrough:Mr.DeepakChopra,Mr.RohanKhare and Mr. Anmol Anand,Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRIO R D E R%27.01.2017 -CM Nos.2432, 2433, 243941 of 2017 (for delay) 1.These applications seek condonation of delay, which is stated to be ofseven days each, in filing the appeals. For the reasons stated in theapplications, the delay is condoned and the appeals are taken on record. 2.The applications stand disposed off.ITA Nos. 46-48 & 50-51 of 2017 3.The question of law urged is “whether in the circumstances, theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) could have extended the interimorder beyond the statutorily permissible limit? ”ITA 46/2017 & other connected mattersPage 1 of 2 4.This Court notices that the provision has been interpreted in W.P.(C)No.1334/2015 Pepsi Food Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax & Anr. (2015) 376 ITR 87 (Delhi ), where the condition was held to beunconstitutional by the judgment of the Court. It was further held that theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) would have the power to extend theinterim order of stay beyond 365 days in deserving cases. 5.In the light of the judgment in Pepsi Food Pvt. Ltd.’s case (supra),no question of law arises for consideration.no question of law arises for consideration. 6.The appeals are dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. JANUARY 27, 2017sb NAJMI WAZIRI, J.