PRINCIAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 7 vs. M/S ORIENTAL BUILDING & FURNISHING CO. LTD.

> 1 ( ® $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 1 to 6 + ITA 337/2017 PRINCIAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 7 Appellant Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, Mr Dileep Shivpuri, Advocates versus M/S ORIENTAL BUILDING & FURNISHING CO. \ LTD. Respondent Through: Mr P.C. Yadav and Mr Gaurav Yadav, Advocates + ITA 338/2017 PRINCIAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 7 Appellant Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, Mr Dileep Shivpuri, Advocates versus M/S ORIENTAL BUILDING & FURNISHING CO. LTD. Respondent Through: Mr P.C. Yadav and Mr Gaurav Yadav, Advocates + ITA 339/2017 PRINCIAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 7 Appellant Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, Mr Dileep Shivpuri, Advocates versus M/S ORIENTAL BUILDING & FURNISHING ITA 33 7/2017 & connected matters Page I of4 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified

( ^ V / 7-r CO. LTD Respondent Through: Mr P.C. Yadav and Mr Gaurav Yadav, Advocates + ITA 340/2017 PRINCIAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 7 Appellant Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, Mr Dileep Shivpuri, Advocates versus M/S ORIENTAL BUILDING & FURNISHING CO. LTD. Respondent Through: Mr P.C. Yadav and Mr Gaurav Yadav, Advocates + ITA 341/2017 PRINCIAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 7 Appellant Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, Mr Dileep Shivpuri, Advocates versus M'S ORIENTAL BUILDING & FURNISHING CO. LTD. Respondent Through: Mr P.C. Yadav and Mr Gaurav Yadav, Advocates + ITA^3^0l7 PRINCIAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 7 Appellant Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, Mr Dileep Shivpuri, Advocates versus M/S ORIENTAL BUILDING & FURNISHING ITA 33 7/2017 & connected matters Page 2 of4

CO. LTD. Respondent Through: Mr P.C. Yadav and Mr Gaurav Yadav, Advocates CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR ORDER % 29.05.2017 f < C) CM 16653/2017 (exemption^ in ITA 337/2017 CM 16655/2017 (exemption^ in ITA 338/2017 CM 16657/2017 (exemption) in ITA 339/2017 CM 16659/2017 (exemption) in ITA 340/2017\ CM 16662/2017 (exemption) in ITA 342/2017 Allowed, subject to alljust exceptions. CM 16652/2017 (delay) in ITA 337/2017 CM 16654/2017 (delay) in ITA 338/2017 CM 16656/2017 (delay) in ITA 339/2017 CM 16658/2017 (delay) in ITA 340/2017\ CM 16660/2017 (delay) in ITA 341/2017 CM 16661/2017 (delay) in ITA 342/2017 For the reasons stated therein, these applications are allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. ITA 337/2017 ITA 338/2017 ITA 339/2017 ITA 340/2017 ITA 341/2017 ITA 342/2017 1. These are the appeals filed by the Revenue against the impugned common ITA 337/2017 & connected matters Page 3 of4

W^' ( ) order dated 5"" September, 2016 passed by the ITAT in ITA No. 2012/Del/2013 and ITA Nos. 5762 to 5766/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year ('AY') 2004 - 2005 to 2009 - 2010. 2. The issue before the ITAT was whether the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A) had erred in not accepting the Annual Letting Value (ALV) of the house property the income from which was subject to tax and instead adopt the fair rental value? The ITAT in the impugned orderheld in favour oftheAssessee and applied therule of consistency after noting that the ALV had been accepted by the Revenue for the earlier AYs. 3. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the Assessee appearing on advance notice that the tax effect in each of these appeals is below Rs.20 lakhs. 4. Having heard Mr Sanjay Kumar, the learned counsel for the Revenue and having examined the impugned order of the ITAT, the Court is of the view that it suffers from no legal infirmity in the ITAT going by the rule of consistency. No substantial question of law arises. In any event , the tax effect in each of the appeals is also below the limit for filing of appeals by the Revenue. 5. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. S.MURAtHnflAR7 O CHANDER SHEKHAR, J MAY 29, 2017/r</ ITA 33 7/2017 <6 connected matters Page 4 of4