POWER FINANCE CORP LTD vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . 1. ITA 1093/2010 . . POWER FINANCE CORP LTD ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Mahua Kalra, Advocate. . versus . . ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Anshul Sharma, Advocate for ` Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate. . . With . 2. ITA 1095/2010 . . POWER FINANCE CORPO LTD ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Mahua Kalra, Advocate. . . versus . . ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Anshul Sharma, Advocate for ` Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate. . With . . ITA Nos. 1093, 1095, 1097 and 1125 of 2010 page 1 of 4. . . 3. ITA 1097/2010 . . POWER FINANCE CORPO LTD ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Mahua Kalra, Advocate. . . versus . . ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Anshul Sharma, Advocate for ` Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate. . . . . And . 4. ITA 1125/2010 . POWER FINANCE CORP LTD ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Mahua Kalra, Advocate. . . versus . . ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Anshul Sharma, Advocate for ` Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate. . CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN . . ITA Nos. 1093, 1095, 1097 and 1125 of 2010 page 2 of 4. . . O R D E R 13.08.2010 CM No. 14069/2010 in ITA No. 1097/2010 (exemption) CM No. 14102/2010 in ITA No. 1125/2010 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, applications stand disposed of. CM No. 14066/2010 in ITA No. 1093/2010 CM Nos. 14070-71/2010 in ITA No.1097/2010 These are the applications for condonation of delay in filing and refiling of the appeals. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and regard being had to the assertions made in the applications, we find sufficient cause for condonation of delay and, accordingly, delay in filing and refilling the appeals is condoned. Accordingly, applications stand disposed of. ITA Nos. 1093/2010, 1095/2010, 1097/2010 and 1125/2010 . Heard Ms. Mahua Kalra, learned counsel for the appellant. It is submitted by Ms. Mahua Kalra, learned counsel for the appellant that prior approval from the Committee on Disputes (COD) has not yet been obtained. . ITA Nos. 1093, 1095, 1097 and 1125 of 2010 page 3 of 4. . In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere with the appeals in praesenti. The appeals stand dismissed. Needless to say, after obtaining the requisite approval from the Committee on Disputes, appellant can refile the appeals. . CHIEF JUSTICE . . . . . MANMOHAN, J AUGUST 13, 2010 js . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ITA Nos. 1093, 1095, 1097 and 1125 of 2010 page 4 of 4. . 5