PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-07 vs. PUNJAB & SIND BANK

1M $~22 to 27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 111012012 ORACLE INDIA PVT LTD. ...... Petitioner Mr. M. S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Satyen Sethi, Mr. A. T. Panda, Ms. Gargi Sethee and Mr. Vikrant A. Maheshwri, Advs. + + Through: versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -V DELHI & ANR ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Junior Standing Counsel for Revenue WITH W.P.(C) 2353/2013 ORACLE INDIA PVT. LTD Through: versus ..... Petitioner Mr. M. S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Satyen Sethi, Mr. A. T. Panda, Ms. Gargi Sethee and Mr. Vikrant A. Maheshwri, Advs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Junior Standing Counsel for Revenue WITH W.P.(C) 2500/2014 ORACLE INDIA PVT LTD Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. M. S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Satyen Sethi, Mr. A. T. Panda, Ms. Gargi Sethee and Mr. Vikrant A. Maheshwri, Advs. Signing Date:16.10.2024 16:56:32 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified

+ + v( versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .. ... Respondents Through: Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC with Mr. WITH W.P.(C) 3765/2015 ORACLE INDIA PVT.L TD Through: versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: WITH W.P.(C) 735/2017 ORACLE INDIA PVT. LTD Through: versus Harsh Pandit & Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Shani, Advocates for VOl Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Junior Standing Counsel for Revenue ..... Petitioner Mr. M. S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sat yen Sethi, Mr. A. T. Panda, Ms. Gargi Sethee and Mr. Vikrant A. Maheshwri, Advs. ..... Respondents Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Junior Standing Counsel for Revenue ..... Petitioner Mr. M. S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Satyen Sethi, Mr. A. T. Panda, Ms. Gargi Sethee and Mr. Vikrant A. Maheshwri, Advs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .. ... Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Junior Standing Counsel for Revenue

+ WITH W.P.(C) 3630/2016 ORACLE INDIA PVT LTD Through: versus UNION OF INDIA, & ORS. Through: CORAM: v ..... Petitioner Mr. M. S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Satyen Sethi, Mr. A. T. Panda, Ms. Gargi Sethee and Mr. Vikrant A. Maheshwri, Advs. ..... Respondents Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Junior Standing Counsel for Revenue HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR ORDER 0/0 13.03.2018 Learned counsel for the parties, on instructions, state that modified terms of reference for special audit are acceptable and may be taken on record. The modified terms of reference for the assessment years ('A Ys') 2008-2009 to 2013-2014 signed by counsel for the parties are enclosed as annexure-A to this order and would be treated as a part of this order. Learned counsel for the parties also agree that the special audit under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would begin on 1.4.2018 with the audit for the AY 2008-2009. On completion of special audit for A Y 2008-2009, special audit for the next AY, i.e., 2009-2010 will commence. Thereafter, on completion of the special audit for preceding year, special audit for the succeeding year would commence. In order to ensure that there is no dispute or debate about

1/1-' limitation, it is directed that the interim orders staying special audit and assessment proceeding for the AY2009-2010 and subsequent years would continue till the special audit for the immediate preceding year is completed. This direction is acceptable to both the petitioner and the respondents. Interim order for the A Y 2008-2009 would remain in force till 31.3.2018. This statement and direction is justified and necessary, as simultaneous special audit for all years would create difficulties, cause inconvenience and would require huge manpower. Further, issues overlap and some issues may not require examination in view of finding in an earlier year. This would be an aspect to be examined and considered by the assessing officer ('AO') and the special auditor. The petitioner, of course, will be at liberty to approach the AO and the special auditor, on the basis of the audit or the assessment orders passed for the earlier year. In case any issue cannot be resolved or settled, the parties can approach the court by way of an application in the present writ petitions. We also clarify that this consent order would not affect the advance pricing agreement proceedings, which are stated to be pending. Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs. ~ - -/1 ~ SANJIV KHANNA, J C~HEKHAR,J MARCH 13, 2018/tp