Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-9 v. Vishu Impex Pvt Ltd

ORDER %

09.11.2016 The question of law urged, i.e., whether the IT AT fell into error in holding that the penalty under Section 271 (D) in the circumstances of the case could not have been imposed because it was beyond the time provided under Section 275 (1) (c), is now covered by the decision of this Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-5 v. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd. (ITA 780/2015, decided on 13.10.2015). The appeal^, therefore, does not raise any substantial question of law; the same are accordingly dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J NAJMI WAZIRI, J NOVEMBER 09, 2016 Ivikasl

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 428/2016 &ITA 431/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok Manchanda, Advocate. versus VISHUIMPEX PVT. LTD. Respondent Through: Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI