. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 v. M/S HINDUJA VENTRUES LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

1 REPORTABLE    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2165 OF 2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI        … APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD.  THROUGH ITS MANAGER          … RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A.No.1429 of  2018 @ SLP(C) No. 36560  of  2012,  C.A. No. 117 of  2015,  C.A. No. 5101  of  2012,  C.A. No. 118  of  2015,   C.A. No. 6727  of  2015,  C.A. No. 119  of  2015,  C.A. No. 116  of 2015,  C.A. No. 194  of  2015,  C.A. No. 114  of  2015,  C.A. No. 120  of  2015,  C.A. No. 7395  of  2012, C.A. No. 7394  of  2012, C.A. No. 121  of  2015,  C.A. No. 122  of  2015,  C.A. Nos.1430­1432 of  2018 @ SLP(C) No. 8507­ 8509  of  2012,  C.A. No. 128  of  2015, C.A.No.1433 of  2018 @ SLP(C) No. 21294  of  2012 C.A. No. 113 of 20151,  C.A. No. 7797 of 2012,  C.A. No. 381 of 2013 ,  C.A. No. 7426 of 2012, C.A. No. 8195 of 2012,  C.A. No. 126 of 2015,  C.A. No. 8800 of 2012,  C.A. No. 3273 of 2013, C.A.No.1434 of  2018 @ SLP(C) No. 10986 of 2013,  C.A. No. 124 of 2015,  C.A. No. 1101 of 2013, C.A. No. 129 of 2015,  C.A. No. 125 of 2015,    C.A. No. 127 of 2015, C.A.No.1435 of  2018 @ SLP(C) No. 21845 of 2013,  C.A. No. 6313 of 2013,  C.A. No. 6733 of 2013, C.A. No. 6191 of 2013,  C.A. No. 8921 of 2013,  C.A. No. 6192 of 2013,  C.A. No. 3355 of 2015,  C.A. No. 7167 of 2013,  C.A. No. 8376 of 2013,  C.A. No. 7172 of 2013,  C.A. No. 7170 of 2013,  C.A. No. 9183 of 2013,  C.A. No. 8341 of 2013,  C.A. No. 7168 of 2013, C.A. No.8256 of 2013,  C.A. No. 7171 of 2013,  C.A. No. 7974 of 2013,  C.A. No. 8342 of 2013,  C.A. No. 7173 of 2013,  C.A. No. 8343 of 2013,  C.A. No. 8933 of 2013,  C.A. No. 8909 of 2013,  C.A. No. 9832 of 2013,  C.A. No. 9833 of 2013,  C.A. No. 9184 of 2013, C.A. No. 3359 of 2015, C.A.No. 1436 of 2018 @ SLP(C) No. 36388 of 2014,  C.A. No. 3781 of 2015, C.A. No. 3358 of 2015, C.A.No. 1437

2 of  2018 @  SLP(C) No. 18398 of 2015,  C.A. No. 6294 of 2015, C.A.No.1438  of  2018 @ SLP(C) No. 19303 of 2015,  C.A.No.1439  of 2018 @ SLP(C) No. 20478 of 2015,  C.A. No. 7892 of 2015,  C.A. No. 9251 of 2015,  C.A. No. 9252 of 2015,  C.A. No. 14525 of 2015, C.A. No. 8178 of 2016,  C.A. No. 8177 of 2016,  C.A. No. 3279 of 2016, C.A.No.1440 of  2018 @ SLP(C) No. 23624 of 2016,  C.A.No.1441 of 2018 @ SLP(C) No. 16185 of 2016,  C.A. No. 5044 of 2016,  C.A. No. 5417 of 2016, C.A. No. 6019 of 2016, C.A.No.1442 of  2018 @ SLP(C)No.26278 of 2016, C.A.No.1443 of  2018 @ SLP(C)No. 4243 of 2017,  C.A. No. 4539 of 2017, C.A.No.1444 of  2018 @ SLP(C) No. 19098 of 2017, C.A.No.1445 of  2018 @ SLP(C) No. 17499 of 2017, C.A.No.1446 of  2018 @ SLP(C) No. 25337 of 2017,  C.A.No.1460 of 2018 @ SLP(C)No. 3447of 2018 (Diary No. 19735 of 2017), C.A.No.1462 of  2018 @ SLP(C)No.3450 of 2018 (Diary No. 24346 of 2017), C.A.No.1461 of  2018 @ SLP(C)No. 3448 of 2018,(Diary No. 36596 of 2017). J U D G M E N T ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. Delay Condoned. Leave granted. 2. This appeal when alongwith several appeals were heard on 16.11.2016, this Court noticed that in batch of cases, four questions have arisen.  The present batch of cases of which Civil Appeal No. 2165 is a leading case relates only to Question No.2, which is to the following effect:­ “ Whether sub­section (2) and sub­section (3) of Section 14A inserted with effect from 01.04.2007 will apply to all pending assessments? Whether Rule 8D is retrospectively applicable?”   3. All these appeals raising only above question of law have

3 been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. For deciding all these appeals, it shall be sufficient to refer facts and proceedings in Civil Appeal No. 2165 of 2012. FACTS Civil Appeal No. 2165 of 2012 4. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of Bombay High Court dated 12.09.2011 in Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 947 of 2011 by which judgment the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax following an earlier judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 12.08.2010 in the case of  Godrej Boyce and Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr., reported in (2010) 328 ITR 81(Bom.).   The assessment year in issue is 2003­2004.  The assessee (respondent in appeal) filed his return of income on 01.12.2003 declaring a loss of Rs.69,92,67,527/­.  A notice under Section 143(2) was issued to the assessee.  The Assessing Officer vide its order dated 27.03.2006 held that during the year under consideration, the assessee company was in receipt of both taxable and non­taxable dividend income.  Accordingly, the dividend on investment exempt under Section 10(23G) was considered by the A.O. for the purpose of disallowance U/S.14A.  Hence,

4 proportionate interest relating to investment on which exemption u/s.10(23G) is available as per the working amounting to Rs.26 crores was disallowed U/S.14A r.w.s. 10(23G) of the I.T. Act.     5. The assessee filed an appeal, which was partly allowed by order dated 05.03.2009.  The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT.  The ITAT allowed the assessee’s appeal relying on the Bombay High Court’s judgment in  Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumabi & Another., reported in (2010) 328 ITR 81(Bom.).   The ITAT held that Rule 8D is only prospective and in the year under consideration Rule 8D was not applicable. ITAT set aside the order of CIT(A) and restored the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication without invoking the provisions of Rule 8D.  Against the order of ITAT, the revenue filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court following its earlier judgment of  Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (supra)  dismissed the appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court has come up in this appeal.  6. In the appeal, the only question, which has been pressed

5 for our consideration is the first question, which was raised before the High Court, which is to the following effect:­ “ Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT is right in holding that applicability of Rule 8D is only prospective in operation and for the year under assessment it was not applicable?” 7. Thus, in this batch of appeals, the only question to be considered and answered is as to whether Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules is prospective in operation as held by the High Court or it is retrospective in operation and shall also be applicable in the assessment year in question as contended by learned counsel for the revenue. 8. We have heard Shri Yashank Adhyaru, learned senior counsel, Shri Arijit Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned senior counsel, Shri Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel and other learned counsel have been heard for different assessees in this batch of appeals.  “ SUBMISSIONS ” 9. Learned counsel for the appellant (revenue) submit that provisions of Section 14A being clarificatory in nature and Rule 8D is a procedural provision which provided only a machinery for the implementation of sub­sections (2) and (3), Rule 8D is retrospective in nature.  The machinery provisions

6 by which the charging section is to be implemented or workable are to be given retrospective effect, which is co­terminus with the period of operation of the main charging provision. The charging section i.e. Section 14A admittedly being retrospective, the machinery provision, i.e. Rule 8D has also to be retrospective.   10. Learned counsel for the revenue has placed reliance on judgments of this Court, i.e.,  Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Meerut Vs. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons, (1994) 6 SCC 623; Commissioner of Income Tax I, Ahmedabad Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Private Limited, (2008) 9 SCC 622 and Commissioner of Income Tax – III Vs. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana, (2014) 6 SCC 444. 11. Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee refuting the submission of learned counsel for the revenue contends that provisions of Rule 8D are only prospective in nature.  He submits that when a new liability is imposed by a statutory provision then the same cannot be retrospective.  He submits that provisions inserted by Rule 8D are new provision for computing the expenditure which can in no manner be retrospective.  He submits that Rule 8D was made applicable by Fifth Amendment Rules, 2008 providing in Clause 2 i.e. “they shall come into force from the date of their

7 publication in the official gazette”.  He submits that the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide its circular dated 28.12.2006 while explaining the substance of the provision of sub­sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A clearly mention that the aforesaid provisions were to be applicable from assessment year 2007­2008 onwards.  Hence, Rule 8D, which is framed to give effect to the provisions of sub­sections (2) and (3) cannot operate from any date prior to assessment year 2007­2008. 12. Shri Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel appearing for assessee submits that Rule 8D has been amended by Income Tax (14 th  Amendment Rules, 2016) w.e.f. 02.06.2016 by which a new methodology of computing the expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income has been brought in place.  In event, the argument is accepted that Rule 8D is retrospective, which rule shall hold the field, whether Rule 8D as inserted w.e.f. 24.03.2008 or one which has been substituted w.e.f. 02.06.2016? The amendment made w.e.f. 02.06.2016 reinforces that the methodology of computing the expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income is prospective and has been change w.e.f. 02.06.2016, no other interpretation is permissible.  He further submits that subordinate legislation is ordinarily

8 prospective and Rule 8D being subordinate legislation can have no retrospective effect.  Learned counsel for the assessees have also placed reliance on various decisions of this Court, which shall be referred to while considering the submissions in detail. 13. Shri S.S.H. Rizvi, learned counsel appearing for the assessee in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) 16185 of 2016 submits that Revenue has already agreed before the ITAT that matter be remitted to Assessing Officer for fresh decision in light of judgment of the Bombay High Court in  Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company (supra) , h ence, it had no jurisdiction to file an appeal before the High Court.  He submits that High Court has rightly dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, relying on the judgment of the Bomabay High Court in  Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company (supra)  after noticing the fact that no interim order was passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition filed against the said judgment. It has been submitted by Shri Rizvi that no other question arose in the appeal before the High Court hence the Revenue has approached this Court by filing this Special Leave Petition without any basis. Relevant Statutory Provisions  14. Rule 8D has been framed to give effect to the provisions

9 of Section 14A sub­section (2) and (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).  The statutory scheme as delineated by Section 14A has to be understood before correctly appreciating the nature and purport of Rule 8D.  Section 14A was first inserted by Finance Act, 2001 with retrospective effect w.e.f. 01.04.1962.  Section 14A as originally inserted reads as under:­ “ 14A. Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income. ­– For the purposes of computing the total income under this Chapter, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act.”  15. The purpose for which Section 14A was introduced was given in the explanatory memorandum issued with the Finance Bill, 2001, which reads a sunder:­ “ Certain incomes are not includible while computing the total income as these are exempt under various provisions of the Act. There have been cases where deductions have been claimed in respect of such exempt income. This in effect means that the tax incentive given by way of exemptions to certain categories of income is being used to reduce also the tax payable on the non­exempt income by debiting the expenses incurred to earn the exempt income against taxable income. This is against the basic principles of taxation whereby only the net income, i.e., gross income minus the expenditure, is taxed. On the same analogy, the exemption is also in respect of the net income. Expenses incurred can be allowed only to the extent they are relatable to the earning of taxable income. It is proposed to insert a new section 14A so as to clarify the

10 intention of the Legislature since the inception of the Income­tax Act, 1961, that no deduction shall be made in respect of any expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Income­tax Act. The proposed amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 1962 and will accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 1962­1963 and subsequent assessment years.” 16. Section 14A being retrospective in operation w.e.f. 01.04.1962, was being used by the Assessing Officers for reopening the assessments, the Central Board of Direct Taxes came with a clarification vide Circular No. 11 of 2001 dated 23.07.2001.  Para 4 of the Circular stated as follows:­ “ The Board have considered this matter and hereby directs that the assessments where the proceedings have become final before the first day of April, 2001 should not be re­opened under section 147 of the Act to disallow expenditure incurred to earn exempt income by applying the provisions of newly inserted section 14A of the Act.” 17. By Finance Act, 2002, a statutory provision was also inserted by way of proviso to Section 14A.  What was clarified by the Circular have been statutorily engrafted in the proviso to the following effect:­            “ Provided that nothing contained in this section shall empower the assessing officer either to reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the Ist day of April, 2001.”

11 18. By Finance Act, 2006, Section 14A was numbered as sub­section (1) and after sub­section (1) sub­sections (2) and (3) were inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2007 to the following effect:­ "(2) The Assessing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income under this Act in accordance with such method as may be prescribed, if the Assessing Officer, having regard to the accounts of the assessee, is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act.  (3) The provisions of sub­section (2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act.” 19. Memorandum explaining the provisions in Finance Bill, 2006 in reference to the method for allocating expenditure in relation to exempt income mentioned following:­  “ Under the existing provisions of the said section, it has been provided that for the purposes of computing the total income, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Income­tax Act.  It is proposed to number the said section as sub­section (1) thereof and to insert a new sub­section (2) in the said section so as to provide that the Assessing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total

12 income, in accordance with such method as may be laid down by the Central Board of Direct Taxes by rules, if the Assessing Officer having regard to the accounts of the assessee, is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income. It is also proposed to provide that provisions of sub­section (2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income.  This amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2007 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2007­08 and subsequent years.” 20. After the changes made in Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2006, a Circular No.14/2006 dated 28.12.2006 was issued, in which Para 11 of the Circular gave following explanation:­ “ 11.1   Section 14A of the Income­tax Act, 1961, provides that for the purposes of computing the total income under Chapter­IV of the said Act, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Income­tax Act. In the existing provisions of section 14A, however, no method of computing the expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income has been provided for. Consequently, there is considerable dispute between the taxpayers and the Department on the method of determining such expenditure. 11.2   In view of the above, a new sub­section (2) has been inserted in section 14A so as to provide that it would be mandatory for the Assessing Officer to determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income in accordance with such method as may be prescribed. However, the

13 Assessing Officer shall follow the prescribed method if, having regard to the accounts of the assessee, he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income. Provisions of sub­section (2), will also be applicable in relation to a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income. 11.3   Applicability   ­ From assessment year 2007­08 onwards.” 21.  Income Tax Rules, 1962 were amended by notification dated 24.03.2008 by which Rule 8D was inserted to the following effect:­ “ Method for determining amount of expenditure in relation to income not includible in total income. 8D   (1) Where the Assessing Officer, having regard to the accounts of the assessee of a previous year, is not satisfied with – ( a )   the correctness of the claim of expenditure made by the assessee; or ( b )   the claim made by the assessee that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act for such previous year, he shall determine the amount of expenditure in relation to such income in accordance with the provisions of sub­rule (2). (2) The expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income shall be the aggregate of following amounts, namely :— ( i )     the amount of expenditure directly relating to income which does not form part of total income;

14 ( ii )   in a case where the assessee has incurred expenditure by way of interest during the previous year which is not directly attributable to any particular income or receipt, an amount computed in accordance with the following formula, namely :— A   X B C Where A= amount of expenditure by way of interest other than the amount of interest included in clause ( i ) incurred during the previous year; B=   the average of value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the previous year ; C=   the average of total assets as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the previous year; ( iii )   an amount equal to one­half per cent of the average of the value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the previous year." 3.   For the purposes of this rule, the 'total assets' shall mean, total assets as appearing in the balance sheet excluding the increase on account of revaluation of assets but including the decrease on account of revaluation of assets.” 22. After setting out the legislative scheme of Section 14A and Rule 8D, now, we proceed to consider the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties on the question in

15 issue. Important Principles of Statutory Interpretation 23. The legislature has plenary power of legislation within the fields assigned to them, it may legislate prospectively as well as retrospectively. It is a settled principle of statutory construction that every statute is  prima   facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implications made to have retrospective operations. Legal Maxim  “nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet non praeteritis “,  i.e. ‘a new law ought to regulate what is to follow, not the past’, contain a principle of presumption of prospectivity of a statute. 24. Justice G.P. Singh  in “Principles of Statutory Interpretation” (14 th  Edition, in Chapter 6) while dealing with operation of fiscal statute elaborates the principles of statutory interpretation in the following words: “ Fiscal legislation imposing liability is generally governed by the normal presumption that it is not retrospective and it is a cardinal principle of the tax law that the law to be applied is that in force in the assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication. The above rule applies to the charging section and other substantive provisions such as a provision imposing penalty and does not apply to machinery or procedural provisions of a taxing Act which are generally

16 retrospective and apply even to pending proceedings. But a procedural provision, as far as possible, will not be so construed as to affect finality of tax assessment or to open up liability which had become barred. Assessment creates a vested right and an assessee cannot be subjected to reassessment unless a provision to that effect inserted by amendment is either is either expressly or by necessary implication retrospective. A provision which in terms is retrospective and has the effect of opening up liability which had become barred by lapse of time, will be subject to the rule of strict construction. In the absence of a clear implication such a legislation will not be given a greater retrospectivity than is expressly mentioned; nor will it be construed to authorize the Income­tax Authorities to commence proceedings which, before the new Act came into force, had by the expiry of the period then provided become barred. But unambiguous language must be given effect to, even if it results in reopening of assessments which had become final after expiry of the period earlier provided for reopening them. There is no fixed formula for the expression of legislative intent to give retrospectivity to a taxation enactment......” 25. A three­Judge Bench of this court in  1976 (1) SCC 906, Govind Das and others Versus the Income Tax officer and another,  noticing the settled rules of interpretation laid down following in paragraph 11: “ 11.  Now it is a well settled rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial decisions that, unless the terms of a statute expressly so provide or necessarily require it, retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to take away or impair an existing right or create a new obligation or impose a new liability otherwise than as regards matters of procedure. The general rule as stated

17 by  Halsbury  in Vol. 36 of the  Laws of England  (3rd Edn.) and reiterated in several decisions of this Court as well as English courts is that “ all statutes other than those which are merely declaratory or which relate only to matters of procedure or of evidence are prima facie prospective” and retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to affect, alter or destroy an existing right or create a new liability or obligation unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment. If the enactment is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation, it ought to be construed as prospective only. If we apply this principle of interpretation, it is clear that sub­section (6) of Section 171 applies only to a situation where the assessment of a Hindu undivided family is completed under Section 143 or Section 144 of the new Act. It can have no application where the assessment of a Hindu undivided family is completed under the corresponding provisions of the old Act. Such a case would be governed by Section 25­A of the old Act which does not impose any personal liability on the members in case of partial partition and to construe sub­section (6) of Section 171 as applicable in such a case with consequential effect of casting of the members personal liability which did not exist under Section 25­A, would be to give retrospective operation to sub­section (6) of Section 171 which is not warranted either by the express language of that provision or by necessary implication. Sub­section (6) of Section 171 can be given full effect by interpreting it as applicable only in a case where the assessment of a Hindu

18 undivided family is made under Section 143 or Section 144 of the new Act. We cannot, therefore, consistently with the rule of interpretation which denies retrospective operation to a statute which has the effect of creating or imposing a new obligation or liability, construe sub­section (6) of Section 171 as embracing a case where assessment of a Hindu undivided family is made under the provisions of the old Act. Here in the present case, the assessments of the Hindu undivided family for Assessment Years 1950­51 to 1956­57 were completed in accordance with the provisions of the old Act which included Section 25­A and the Income Tax Officer was, therefore, not entitled to avail of the provision enacted in sub­section (6) read with sub­section (7) of Section 171 of the new Act for the purpose of recovering the tax or any part thereof personally from any members of the joint family including the petitioners.” 26. A Constitution Bench of this court speaking through one of us, Dr. Justice A.K.Sikri, in the case of  The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central – 1 New Delhi) Vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., 2015 (1) SCC 1,  while considering as to whether Proviso inserted in Section 113 of Income Tax Act w.e.f. 01.06.2002 is prospective or clarificatory /retrospective noticed the general principles concerning retrospectivity. Following was laid down by the Constitution Bench in Paras 28, 29 and 33: “ 28.  Of the various rules guiding how legislation has to be interpreted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have

19 a retrospective operation. The idea behind the rule is that a current law should govern current activities. Law passed today cannot apply to the events of the past. If we do something today, we do it keeping in view the law of today and in force and not tomorrow’s backward adjustment of it. Our belief in the nature of the law is founded on the bedrock that every human being is entitled to arrange his affairs by relying on the existing law and should not find that his plans have been retrospectively upset. This principle of law is known as  lex prospicit non respicit : law looks forward not backward. As was observed in  Phillips v.  Eyre 6 , a retrospective legislation is contrary to the general principle that legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated when introduced for the first time to deal with future acts ought not to change the character of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the then existing law. 29.  The obvious basis of the principle against retrospectivity is the principle of “ fairness ”, which must be the basis of every legal rule as was observed in  L’Office Cherifien des Phosphates  v. Yamashita­Shinnihon Steamship Co. Ltd. 7  Thus, legislations which modified accrued rights or which impose obligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as prospective unless the legislative intent is clearly to give the enactment a retrospective effect; unless the legislation is for purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former legislation or to explain a former legislation. We need not note the cornucopia of case law available on the subject because aforesaid legal position clearly emerges from the various decisions and this legal position was conceded by the counsel for the parties. In any case, we shall refer to few judgments containing this dicta, a little later. 33.  A Constitution Bench of this Court in Keshavlal Jethalal Shah  v.  Mohanlal Bhagwandas , while considering the nature of amendment to

20 Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act as amended by Gujarat Act 18 of 1965, observed as follows: (AIR p. 1339, para 8) “ 8 . … The amending clause does not seek to explain any pre­existing legislation which was ambiguous or defective. The power of the High Court to entertain a petition for exercising revisional jurisdiction was before the amendment derived from Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the legislature has by the amending Act not attempted to explain the meaning of that provision. An explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the previous Act.” 27. A two­Judge Bench, speaking through one of us, Dr. Justice A. K. Sikri in   Jayam and company Vs. Assistant Commissioner & Ors., (2016) 15 SCC 125,  again reiterated the broad legal principles while testing a retrospective statute in Paragraphs 14 and 18 which is to the following effect: “ 14.  With this, let us advert to the issue on retrospectivity. No doubt, when it comes to fiscal legislation, the legislature has power to make the provision retrospectively. In  R.C. Tobacco (P) Ltd.  v.  Union of India , this Court stated broad legal principles while testing a retrospective statute, in the following manner: (SCC pp. 737­38 & 740, paras 21­22 & 28) “ ( i ) A law cannot be held to be unreasonable merely because it operates retrospectively; ( ii ) The unreasonability must lie in some other additional factors; ( iii ) The retrospective operation of a fiscal statute would have to be found to

21 be unduly oppressive and confiscatory before it can be held to be unreasonable as to violate constitutional norms; ( iv ) Where taxing statute is plainly discriminatory or provides no procedural machinery for assessment and levy of tax or that is confiscatory, courts will be justified in striking down the impugned statute as unconstitutional; ( v ) The other factors being period of retrospectivity and degree of unforeseen or unforeseeable financial burden imposed for the past period; ( vi ) Length of time is not by itself decisive to affect retrospectivity.” ( Jayam and Co. case 1 , SCC Online Mad para 85) 18.  The entire gamut of retrospective operation of fiscal statutes was revisited by this Court in a Constitution Bench judgment in  CIT  v.  Vatika Township (P) Ltd.  in the following manner: (SCC p. 24, paras 33­35) “ 33 . A Constitution Bench of this Court in  Keshavlal Jethalal Shah  v.  Mohanlal Bhagwandas , while considering the nature of amendment to Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act as amended by Gujarat Act 18 of 1965, observed as follows: (AIR p. 1339, para 8) ‘ 8 . … The amending clause does not seek to explain any pre­existing legislation which was ambiguous or defective. The power of the High Court to entertain a petition for exercising revisional jurisdiction was before the amendment derived from Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the legislature has by the amending Act not attempted to explain the meaning of that provision. An explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear up

22 doubts as to the meaning of the previous Act.’ 34 . It would also be pertinent to mention that assessment creates a vested right and an assessee cannot be subjected to reassessment unless a provision to that effect inserted by amendment is either expressly or by necessary implication retrospective. (See  CED  v.  M.A. Merchant .) 35 . We would also like to reproduce hereunder the following observations made by this Court in  Govind Das  v.  ITO , while holding Section 171(6) of the Income Tax Act to be prospective and inapplicable for any assessment year prior to 1­4­1962, the date on which the Income Tax Act came into force: (SCC p. 914, para 11) ‘ 11 . Now it is a well­settled rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial decisions that, unless the terms of a statute expressly so provide or necessarily require it, retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to take away or impair an existing right or create a new obligation or impose a new liability otherwise than as regards matters of procedure. The general rule as stated by Halsbury in Vol. 36 of the Laws of England  (3rd Edn.) and reiterated in several decisions of this Court as well as English courts is that “ all statutes other than those which are merely declaratory or which relate only to matters of procedure or of evidence are prima facie prospective and retrospective

23 operation should not be given to a statute so as to affect, alter or destroy an existing right or create a new liability or obligation unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment.  If the enactment is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation, it ought to be construed as prospective only. ”’” 28. The sub­section (2) and sub­section (3) were inserted in Section 14A by Finance Act, 2006. The memorandum explaining the provision in Finance Bill, 2006, in reference to the methods for allocating expenditure in relation to exempt income as extracted above clearly mentions that amendments brought by Finance Bill, 2006 will take effect from 01.04.2007. The last paragraph of memorandum was to the following effect: “ this amendment will take effect from 01.04.2007 and will accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2007­08 and subsequent years” 29. The Constitution Bench of this court in the  Commissioner of Income Tax and ors. Vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., (Supra) , has taken into consideration the notes of clause appended to the Finance Bill to decipher the nature of the legislative scheme. In paragraph 42.1, Constitution Bench stated as follows:

24 “ 42.1.  “Notes on Clauses” appended to the Finance Bill, 2002 while proposing insertion of proviso categorically states that “this amendment will take effect from 1­6­2002”. These become epigraphic **  words, when seen in contradistinction to other amendments specifically stating those to be clarificatory or retrospective depicting clear intention of the legislature. It can be seen from the same Notes that a few other amendments in the Income Tax Act were made by the same Finance Act specifically making those amendments retrospective. For example, Clause 40 seeks to amend Section 92­F. Clause ( iii­a ) of Section 92­F is amended “so as to  clarify  that the activities mentioned in the said clause include the carrying out of any work in pursuance of a contract” (emphasis supplied). This amendment takes effect retrospectively from 1­4­2002. Various other amendments also take place retrospectively. The Notes on Clauses show that the legislature is fully aware of three concepts: ( i ) prospective amendment with effect from a fixed date; ( ii ) retrospective amendment with effect from a fixed anterior date; and ( iii ) clarificatory amendments which are retrospective in nature.” 30. It is also relevant to know as to how the statutory provisions of Section 14A sub­section (2) and sub­section (3), Rule 8D was understood by the Income Tax department itself. After insertion of sub­section (2) and sub­section (3) in Section 14A by Finance Bill, 2006, circular dated 28.12.2006 was issued by the department wherein paragraph 11.3, following was stated: “ 11.3. Applicability­ from assessment year 2007­2008 onwards.”

25 31. The methodology for determining amount of the expenditure in addition to income not includable in total income was for the first time prescribed by Rule 8D as was envisaged in Section 14A sub­section (2) and sub­section (3). It is also relevant to notice that Constitution Bench in  the Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd.,  has also referred to and relied the CBDT circular to find out the understanding of the Central Board of Direct Tax itself in context of Provision which was in issue in the above case. 32. Explanatory memorandum issued with the Finance Bill, 2006 and the CBDT circular dated 28.12.2006, thus, clearly indicates that department understood that sub­section (2) and sub­section (3) was to be implemented with effect from assessment year 2007­2008. The Rule 8D prescribing the method was brought into statute book with effect from 24.03.2008 to implement sub­section (2) and sub­section (3) with effect from assessment year 2008­2009, is clear indicator of the fact that a new method for computing the expenditure was brought in by the rules which was to be utilized for computing expenditure for the Assessment Year 2008­2009 and onwards. 33. When Section 14A was inserted by Finance Act, 2001, it

26 was with retrospective effect with effect from 01.04.1962 where as Finance Act, 2006, by which sub­section (2) and sub­section (3) to Section 14A were inserted, it was with effect from 01.04.2006 which was mentioned in clause 1(2) of Finance Act, 2006 which was to the following effect: “ 1(2). Save as otherwise provided in this Act, Sections 2 to 57 shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1 st  day of April, 2006.” Rule 8D which was inserted by notification dated 24.03.2008. Rule 1 sub­rule (2) provides as under: “ 1. (1) These rules may be called the  Income­tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2008. (2). They shall come into force from date of their publication in the Official Gazette.” It is, however, well settled that the mere date of enforcement of statutory provisions does not conclude that the statute is prospective in nature. The nature and content of statute have to be looked into to find out the legislative scheme and the nature, effect and consequence of the statute.  34. The submissions which have been much pressed by the counsel for revenue is that the Section 14A of the Act being clarificatory in nature having retrospective operation, Rule 8D, which is a machinery provisions have also to be held to be retrospective to make machinery provisions workable.

27 35. It is to be noted that Section 14A was inserted by Finance Act, 2001 and the provisions were fully workable without their being any mechanism provided for computing the expenditure. Although Section 14A was made effective from 01.04.1962 but Proviso was immediately inserted by Finance Act, 2002, providing that Section 14A shall not empower assessing officer either to reassess under Section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessees under Section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before 01.04.2001. Thus, all concluded transactions prior to 01.04.2001 were made final and not allowed to be re­opened. 36. The memorandum of explanation explaining the provisions of Finance Act, 2006 has clearly mentioned that Section 14 sub­section (2) and sub­section (3) shall be effective with effect from the assessment year 2006­07 alone which is another indicator that provision was intended to operate prospectively. 37. Learned counsel for the appellant have placed heavy reliance on a three­Judge Bench Judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Meerut versus Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons, (1994) 6 SCC 623 . This Court in the above case

28 had to interpret Rule 1­BB, inserted in Wealth Tax, 1957 w.e.f. 01.04.1979.  For Assessment Year 1977­78 and 1978­79 assessment order was passed on 08.02.1983 by which time Rule 1 BB had been introduced in the Rule. The assessee contended that properties to be valued applying the Rule 1­BB.  The claim was rejected and Assessing Officer had valued the immovable property independently of Rule 1­BB. 38. Appeal preferred by assessee was allowed. Appeal by the Revenue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was also dismissed.  High Court also answered the question against the Revenue, which was taken in appeal before this Court.  This Court, after noticing the various principles of “statutory interpretation” held that “procedural law” generally speaking is applicable to pending cases. Interpreting Rule 1­BB following was held in para 23 and 25:  “ 23. We may now turn to the scope and content of Rule 1­BB. The said rule merely provides a choice amongst well­known and well­settled modes of valuation. Even in the absence of Rule 1­BB it would not have have been objectionable, nor would there be any legal impediment, to adopt the mode of valuation embodied in Rule 1­BB, namely, the method of capitalisation of income on a number of years' purchase value. The rule was intended to impart uniformity in valuations and to avoid vagaries and disparities resulting from application of different modes of valuation in different cases where the nature of the property is similar.” 25. On a consideration of the matter we are

29 persuaded to the view that Rule 1­BB is essentially a rule of evidence as to the choice of one of the well accepted methods of valuation in respect of certain kinds of properties with a view to achieving uniformity in valuation and avoiding disparate valuations resulting from application of different methods of valuation respecting properties of a similar nature and character. The view taken by the High Courts, in our opinion, cannot be said to be erroneous.” 39. This Court in the above case held that Rule 1­BB shall be applicable even prior to the enforcement of the rule holding that the said rule merely provides a choice amongst well­known and well­settled modes of valuation.  It was held that even in the absence of Rule 1­BB, it would not have been objectionable to adopt the mode of valuation embodied in Rule 1­BB, namely, the mode of capitalisation of income on a number of years purchased value. The said judgment is, clearly, distinguishable in context of issue which has arisen before us. In the present case, methodology as provided under Rule 8D was neither a well­known nor well­settled mode of computation. The new mode of computation was brought in place by Rule 8D. No Assessing Officer, even in his imagination could have applied the methodology, which was brought in place by Rule 8D. Thus, retrospective operation of Rule 8D cannot be accepted on the strength of law laid down by this Court in the above case.

30 40. The next judgment relied by the Revenue is  Commissioner of Income Tax I, Ahmedabad versus Gold Coin Health Food Private Limited, (2008) 9 SCC 622 .  In the above case, this Court considered the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2002 to Section 271(1)(c)(iii) of the Act. This Court held that the Parliament clarified the position by changing the expression “any” by “if any”, which was not a substantive amendment creating penalty for the first time.  The amendment as specifically noted in the notes of “Clauses” was clarificatory in nature. In para 5 following was laid down:  “ 5. It is pointed out that prior to the amendment,  Section 271(1) (c)(iii) read as follows: "271.(1)(c)(iii) in the cases referred to in clause (c), in addition to any tax payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed twice, the amount of the income in respect of which the particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished. "   It was submitted that bare reading of the provision made the position clear that it was not necessary that income tax must be payable by the assessee as sine qua non for imposition of penalty. The word “any” made the position clear that the penalty was in addition to any tax which may be paid by the assessee.

31 Therefore, even if no tax was payable, the penalty was leviable. It is in that context submitted that even prior to the amendment it could not be read to mean that if no tax was payable by the assessee because of filing a return disclosing loss, the assessee is not liable to pay penalty even if the assessee concealed and/or furnished inaccurate particulars. Because some High Courts took the contradictory view, Parliament clarified the position by changing the expression "any' by "if any". This was not a substantive amendment which created a penalty for the first time. The amendment by the Finance Act   as specifically noted in the Notes on Clauses makes the position clear that the amendment was clarificatory in nature and would apply to all assessments even prior to Assessment Year 2003­04. ” 41. The three­Judge Bench also referred to Departmental Circular dated 24.07.1976, which was found relevant for interpreting for finding out the nature of the amended provision. The three­Judge Bench, further held in Para 16 to the following effect:  "16. The law is well settled that the applicable provision would be the law as it existed on the date of the filing of the return. It is of relevance to note that when any loss is returned in any return it need not necessarily be the loss of the previous year concerned. It may also include carried­forward loss which is required to be set up against future income under  Section 72

32 of the Act. Therefore, the applicable law on the date of filing of the return cannot be confined only to the losses of the previous accounting years.” The three­Judge Bench, after noticing the earlier cases and principles of the statutory interpretation recorded following conclusion in para 21: “ 21. Above being the position, the inevitable conclusion is that Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c)   is clarificatory and not substantive. The view expressed to the contrary in Virtual case, (2007) 9 SCC 665 is not correct. ” The above case is also clearly distinguishable and not applicable in the facts of the present case. It was held that amendments were clarificatory in nature, hence shall operate retrospectively.  42. The Revenue has also relied on the judgment of this Court in  Commissioner of Income Tax­III versus Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana, (2014) 6 SCC 444 .  The above judgment has been relied by the Revenue for the preposition that it is the duty of the Court, while interpreting machinery  provisions of a taxing statute to give effect to its manifest purpose. In para 34 following was laid down:  “ 34. It is the duty of the court while interpreting the machinery provisions of a taxing statute to give effect to its manifest purpose. Wherever the intention to impose liability is clear, the courts

33 ought not be hesitant in espousing a commonsense interpretation to the machinery provisions so that the charge does not fail. The machinery provisions must, no doubt, be so construed as would effectuate the object and purpose of the statute and not defeat the same (Whitney v. IRC, 1926 AC 37 (HL), CIT  v. Mahaliram Ramjidas ,  (1940) 8 ITR 442, Indian United Mills Ltd. v. Commr. of Excess Profits Tax, (1955) 27 ITR 20(SC), and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT,(1963) 48 ITR 1(SC);  CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons , (1994) 6 SCC 623;  CIT v. National Taj Traders, (1980) 1 SCC 370; Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. CTO, (1981) 4 SCC 578. Francis Bennion in Bennion on Statutory Interpretation, 5th Edn., Lexis Nexis in support of the aforesaid proposition put forth as an illustration that since charge made by the legislator in procedural provisions is excepted to be for the general benefit of litigants and others, it is presumed that it applies to pending as well as future proceedings.” 43. There cannot be any dispute to the preposition that machinery provision of taxing statute has to give effect to its manifest purposes.  But the applicability of the machinery provision whether it is prospective or retrospective depends on the content and nature of the Statutory Scheme. In the above case, the Court was not considering the question of prospectivity or retrospectivity of the machinery provision, hence the above case also does not help the appellant in the present case. 44. The Constitution Bench in  Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)­I, New Delhi versus Vatika Township (supra) , after noticing the principle of Statutory Interpretation, as noted

34 above, has laid down the following in para 36,  37 and 39:  “ 36. In  CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd ., AIR 1961 SC 1633, this Court held that as the liability to pay tax is computed according to the law in force at the beginning of the assessment year  i.e. the first day of April, any change in law affecting tax liability after that date though made during the currency of the assessment year, unless specifically made retrospective, does not apply to the assessment for that year.  Answer to the reference 37. When we examine the insertion of proviso in Section 113   of the Act, keeping in view the aforesaid principles, our irresistible conclusion is that the intention of the legislature was to make it prospective in nature. This proviso cannot be treated as declaratory/statutory or curative in nature.” Reasons in support “ 39. The first and foremost poser is as to whether it was possible to make the block assessment with the addition of levy of surcharge, in the absence of proviso to  Section 113 ? In Suresh N. Gupta itself, it was acknowledged and admitted that the position prior to the amendment of Section 113   of the Act whereby the proviso was added, whether surcharge was payable in respect of block assessment or not, was totally ambiguous and unclear. The Court pointed out that some assessing officers had taken the view that no surcharge is leviable. Others were at a loss to apply a particular rate of surcharge as they were not clear as to which  Finance Act , prescribing such

35 rates, was applicable. It is a matter of common knowledge and is also pointed out that the surcharge varies from year to year. However, the assessing officers were indeterminative about the date with reference to which rates provided for in the  Finance Act  were to be made applicable. They had four dates before them viz.:(Suresh N. Gupta case, (2008) 4 SCC 362, SCC p. 379, para 35) (i) Whether surcharge was leviable with reference to the rates provided for in the Finance Act   of the year in which the search was initiated; or (ii) the year in which the search was concluded; or (iii) the year in which the block assessment proceedings under Section 158­BC of the Act were initiated; or (iv) the year in which block assessment order was passed. ” 45. As noted above, that Rule 8D has again been amended by Income Tax (Fourteenth Amendment)  Rules, 2016 w.e.f. 02.06.2016, by which Rule 8D sub­rule (2) has been substituted by a new provision which is to the following effect: [(2) The expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income shall be the aggregate of following amounts, namely:­ (i) the amount of expenditure directly relating to income which does not form part of total income; and

36 (ii) an amount equal to one per cent of the annual average of the monthly averages of the opening and closing balances of the value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of total income: Provided  that the amount referred to in clause (i) and clause (ii) shall not exceed the total expenditure claimed by the assessee.] 46. The method for determining the amount of expenditure brought in force w.e.f. 24.03.2008 has been given a go­bye and a new method has been brought into force w.e.f. 02.06.2016, by interpreting the Rule 8D retrospective, there will be a conflict in applicability of 5 th  & 14 th  Amendment Rules which clearly indicates that the Rule has a prospective operation, which has been prospectively changed by adopting another methodology. 47 . One of the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the assessee also needs to be noticed. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that it is well­settled that subordinate legislation ordinarily is not retrospective unless there are clear indication to the same. Reliance has been placed on judgment of this Court in  State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Shiv Karampal Sahu, (2009) 11 SCC 453 . In para 17 following has been stated:

37 “ 17. Ordinarily, a subordinate legislation should not be construed to be retrospective in operation. The Circular Letter dated 7­5­2003 was given a prospective effect. The father of the respondent died on 19­5­2000. There is nothing to show that even Circular dated 9­8­2000 had been given retrospective effect. In any view of the matter, as the State of Jharkhand in the Circular Letter dated 7­5­2003 adopted the earlier circular letters issued by the State of Bihar only in respect of cases where death had occurred after 15­10­2000 i.e. the date from which the State of Jharkhand came into being, the High Court, in our opinion, committed a serious error in giving retrospective effect thereto indirectly which it could not do directly. Reasons assigned by the High Court, for the reasons aforementioned, are unacceptable. ” There is no indication in Rule 8D to the effect that Rule 8D intended to apply retrospectively.    48. Applying the principles of statutory interpretation for interpreting retrospectivity of a fiscal statute and looking into the nature and purpose of sub­section (2) and sub­section (3)  of Section 14A as well as purpose and intent of Rule 8D coupled with the explanatory notes in the Finance Bill, 2006 and the departmental understanding as reflected by Circular dated 28.12.2006, we are of the considered opinion that Rule 8D was intended to operate prospectively. 49. It is relevant to note that impugned judgment in this appeal relies on earlier judgment of Bombay High Court in

38 Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and Another, (2010) 328 ITR 81(Bom.) , where the Division Bench of the Bombay High court after elaborately considering the principles to determine the prospectivity or retrospectivity of the amendment has concluded that Rule 8D is prospective in nature. Against the aforesaid judgment of the Bombay High court dated 12.08.2010 an appeal was filed in this court which has been decided  vide  its judgment reported in  Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (2017) 7 SCC 421 . This Court, while deciding the above appeal repelled the challenge raised by the assessee regarding  vires  of Section 14A. In para 36 of the judgment, this Court noticed that with regard to retrospectivity of provisions Revenue had filed appeal, hence the said question was not gone into the aforesaid appeal. In the above case, this Court specifically left the question of retrospectivity to be decided in other appeals filed by the Revenue. We thus have proceeded to decide the question of retrospectivity of Rule 8D in these appeals. 50. In view of our opinion as expressed above, dismissal of the appeal by the Bombay High Court is fully sustainable. As held above, the Rule 8D is prospective in operation and could

39 not have been applied to any assessment year prior to Assessment Year 2008­09. 51. In result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.   ..........................J. ( A.K. SIKRI ) ..........................J.      ( ASHOK BHUSHAN ) NEW DELHI, JANUARY 31,2018.

40 ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.6 SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 2165/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER Respondent(s) (HEARD BY: HON. A.K.SIKRI AND HON. ASHOK BHUSHAN,JJ.) WITH SLP(C) No. 4243/2017 (IX) C.A. No. 1101/2013 (XIV) C.A. No. 129/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 125/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 8507-8509/2012 (IX) C.A. No. 4539/2017 (III) C.A. No. 3358/2015 (III) C.A. No. 127/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 3279/2016 (III) SLP(C) No. 36560/2012 (IX) SLP(C) No. 23624/2016 (IX) SLP(C) No. 16185/2016 (IX) C.A. No. 5044/2016 (XIV) C.A. No. 5417/2016 (III) C.A. No. 128/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 6019/2016 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 18398/2015 (IX) C.A. No. 6294/2015 (III) SLP(C) No. 21845/2013 (IX) C.A. No. 6313/2013 (III) C.A. No. 6733/2013 (III) SLP(C) No. 21294/2012 (IX) SLP(C) No. 19303/2015 (IX) C.A. No. 113/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 117/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 5101/2012 (IX) C.A. No. 118/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 7797/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 6727/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 119/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 116/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 20478/2015 (IX) C.A. No. 194/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 114/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 6191/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8921/2013 (III)

41 C.A. No. 6192/2013 (III) C.A. No. 3355/2015 (III) C.A. No. 7167/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8376/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7172/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7170/2013 (III) C.A. No. 9183/2013 (III) C.A. No. 120/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 7395/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 8341/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7168/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8256/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7171/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7974/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8342/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7173/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8343/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8933/2013 (III) C.A. No. 381/2013 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 26278/2016 (XIV) C.A. No. 8909/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7394/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 121/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 122/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 9832/2013 (III) C.A. No. 9833/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7892/2015 (III) C.A. No. 9184/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7426/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 3359/2015 (III) C.A. No. 9251/2015 (III) C.A. No. 8195/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 126/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 8800/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 9252/2015 (III) SLP(C) No. 36388/2014 (IX) C.A. No. 14525/2015 (III) C.A. No. 3781/2015 (III) C.A. No. 3273/2013 (XIV) C.A. No. 8178/2016 (III) C.A. No. 8177/2016 (III) SLP(C) No. 10986/2013 (XVI) C.A. No. 124/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 19098/2017 (XIV) ( IA No.45647/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.45648/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 17499/2017 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION AND I.R.) SLP(C) No. 25337/2017 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 49025/2017)

42 Diary No(s). 24346/2017 (IX) Diary No(s). 19735/2017 (XIV) (IA No.88764/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.88771/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.88768/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING) Diary No(s). 36596/2017 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.135619/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.135621/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 31-01-2018 These matters were called on for pronouncement of judgment today. For Appellant(s)` Mr. P.S. Narsimha, ASG Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, Sr. Adv. Mr. K. Radha Krishnan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. M.S. Syah, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mayank N., Adv. Mr. Tarun Singh, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Pradeep Kumar Bakshi, AOR Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Kavita Jha, AOR Mr. Udit Haresh, Adv. Ms. Sayaree Basu Mallik, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Shally Bhasin, Adv. Mr. Raghav Pandey, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Ms. Pooja Dhar, AOR Mr. Sanjeev K. Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Juneja, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Srivastva, Adv. Mr. Akshay Mahajan, Adv. M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR Mr. Mihir Ashok Mody, Adv. Mr. Dhaval Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Sikka, Adv.

43 M/S. K Ashar & Co., AOR Mr. Munawwar Naseem, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Ranjit B. Raut, Adv. Mrs. Bina Gupta, AOR Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi, AOR Mr. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Mr. K. Gopal, Adv. Mr. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv. Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. Ajay Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Mallika Joshi, Adv. Mr. Rajan Narain, AOR Mr. S. Vasudevan, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Sood, Adv. Mr. Shashank Sharma, Adv. Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Punit Dutt Tyagi, AOR Mr. B. S. Banthia, AOR Ms. Aruna Gupta, AOR Mr. Naveen Kumar, AOR Mr. Percy B. Pardiwalla, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajiv Tyagi, AOR Mr. Jagdish Kumar Chawla, AOR Mr. Rustom B. Hathikhanawala, AOR Mr. Bimal Roy Jad, AOR Mr. N.G. Dev, Adv. Mr. Swami Nath, Adv. Ms. Vithika Garg, Adv. Ms. Vidushi Garg, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kumar, AOR Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, AOR

44 Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR Mr. R. Sudhinder, Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Ms. Amrita Sarkar, Adv. Mr. Birendra Kumar Mishra, AOR Mrs. Shally Bhasin, AOR Mr. Ajay Sharma, AOR Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and His Lordship. Delay condoned. Leave granted. The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed reportable judgment. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Ashwani Thakur) (Mala Kumari Sharma ) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)

1 REPORTABLE    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2165 OF 2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI        … APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD.  THROUGH ITS MANAGER          … RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A.No.1429 of  2018 @ SLP(C) No. 36560  of  2012,  C.A. No. 117 of  2015,  C.A. No. 5101  of  2012,  C.A. No. 118  of  2015,   C.A. No. 6727  of  2015,  C.A. No. 119  of  2015,  C.A. No. 116  of 2015,  C.A. No. 194  of  2015,  C.A. No. 114  of  2015,  C.A. No. 120  of  2015,  C.A. No. 7395  of  2012, C.A. No. 7394  of  2012, C.A. No. 121  of  2015,  C.A. No. 122  of  2015,  C.A. Nos.1430­1432 of  2018 @ SLP(C) No. 8507­ 8509  of  2012,  C.A. No. 128  of  2015, C.A.No.1433 of  2018 @ SLP(C) No. 21294  of  2012 C.A. No. 113 of 20151,  C.A. No. 7797 of 2012,  C.A. No. 381 of 2013 ,  C.A. No. 7426 of 2012, C.A. No. 8195 of 2012,  C.A. No. 126 of 2015,  C.A. No. 8800 of 2012,  C.A. No. 3273 of 2013, C.A.No.1434 of  2018 @ SLP(C) No. 10986 of 2013,  C.A. No. 124 of 2015,  C.A. No. 1101 of 2013, C.A. No. 129 of 2015,  C.A. No. 125 of 2015,    C.A. No. 127 of 2015, C.A.No.1435 of  2018 @ SLP(C) No. 21845 of 2013,  C.A. No. 6313 of 2013,  C.A. No. 6733 of 2013, C.A. No. 6191 of 2013,  C.A. No. 8921 of 2013,  C.A. No. 6192 of 2013,  C.A. No. 3355 of 2015,  C.A. No. 7167 of 2013,  C.A. No. 8376 of 2013,  C.A. No. 7172 of 2013,  C.A. No. 7170 of 2013,  C.A. No. 9183 of 2013,  C.A. No. 8341 of 2013,  C.A. No. 7168 of 2013, C.A. No.8256 of 2013,  C.A. No. 7171 of 2013,  C.A. No. 7974 of 2013,  C.A. No. 8342 of 2013,  C.A. No. 7173 of 2013,  C.A. No. 8343 of 2013,  C.A. No. 8933 of 2013,  C.A. No. 8909 of 2013,  C.A. No. 9832 of 2013,  C.A. No. 9833 of 2013,  C.A. No. 9184 of 2013, C.A. No. 3359 of 2015, C.A.No. 1436 of 2018 @ SLP(C) No. 36388 of 2014,  C.A. No. 3781 of 2015, C.A. No. 3358 of 2015, C.A.No. 1437

2 of  2018 @  SLP(C) No. 18398 of 2015,  C.A. No. 6294 of 2015, C.A.No.1438  of  2018 @ SLP(C) No. 19303 of 2015,  C.A.No.1439  of 2018 @ SLP(C) No. 20478 of 2015,  C.A. No. 7892 of 2015,  C.A. No. 9251 of 2015,  C.A. No. 9252 of 2015,  C.A. No. 14525 of 2015, C.A. No. 8178 of 2016,  C.A. No. 8177 of 2016,  C.A. No. 3279 of 2016, C.A.No.1440 of  2018 @ SLP(C) No. 23624 of 2016,  C.A.No.1441 of 2018 @ SLP(C) No. 16185 of 2016,  C.A. No. 5044 of 2016,  C.A. No. 5417 of 2016, C.A. No. 6019 of 2016, C.A.No.1442 of  2018 @ SLP(C)No.26278 of 2016, C.A.No.1443 of  2018 @ SLP(C)No. 4243 of 2017,  C.A. No. 4539 of 2017, C.A.No.1444 of  2018 @ SLP(C) No. 19098 of 2017, C.A.No.1445 of  2018 @ SLP(C) No. 17499 of 2017, C.A.No.1446 of  2018 @ SLP(C) No. 25337 of 2017,  C.A.No.1460 of 2018 @ SLP(C)No. 3447of 2018 (Diary No. 19735 of 2017), C.A.No.1462 of  2018 @ SLP(C)No.3450 of 2018 (Diary No. 24346 of 2017), C.A.No.1461 of  2018 @ SLP(C)No. 3448 of 2018,(Diary No. 36596 of 2017). J U D G M E N T ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. Delay Condoned. Leave granted. 2. This appeal when alongwith several appeals were heard on 16.11.2016, this Court noticed that in batch of cases, four questions have arisen.  The present batch of cases of which Civil Appeal No. 2165 is a leading case relates only to Question No.2, which is to the following effect:­ “ Whether sub­section (2) and sub­section (3) of Section 14A inserted with effect from 01.04.2007 will apply to all pending assessments? Whether Rule 8D is retrospectively applicable?”   3. All these appeals raising only above question of law have

3 been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. For deciding all these appeals, it shall be sufficient to refer facts and proceedings in Civil Appeal No. 2165 of 2012. FACTS Civil Appeal No. 2165 of 2012 4. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of Bombay High Court dated 12.09.2011 in Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 947 of 2011 by which judgment the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax following an earlier judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 12.08.2010 in the case of  Godrej Boyce and Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr., reported in (2010) 328 ITR 81(Bom.).   The assessment year in issue is 2003­2004.  The assessee (respondent in appeal) filed his return of income on 01.12.2003 declaring a loss of Rs.69,92,67,527/­.  A notice under Section 143(2) was issued to the assessee.  The Assessing Officer vide its order dated 27.03.2006 held that during the year under consideration, the assessee company was in receipt of both taxable and non­taxable dividend income.  Accordingly, the dividend on investment exempt under Section 10(23G) was considered by the A.O. for the purpose of disallowance U/S.14A.  Hence,

4 proportionate interest relating to investment on which exemption u/s.10(23G) is available as per the working amounting to Rs.26 crores was disallowed U/S.14A r.w.s. 10(23G) of the I.T. Act.     5. The assessee filed an appeal, which was partly allowed by order dated 05.03.2009.  The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT.  The ITAT allowed the assessee’s appeal relying on the Bombay High Court’s judgment in  Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumabi & Another., reported in (2010) 328 ITR 81(Bom.).   The ITAT held that Rule 8D is only prospective and in the year under consideration Rule 8D was not applicable. ITAT set aside the order of CIT(A) and restored the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication without invoking the provisions of Rule 8D.  Against the order of ITAT, the revenue filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court following its earlier judgment of  Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (supra)  dismissed the appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court has come up in this appeal.  6. In the appeal, the only question, which has been pressed

5 for our consideration is the first question, which was raised before the High Court, which is to the following effect:­ “ Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT is right in holding that applicability of Rule 8D is only prospective in operation and for the year under assessment it was not applicable?” 7. Thus, in this batch of appeals, the only question to be considered and answered is as to whether Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules is prospective in operation as held by the High Court or it is retrospective in operation and shall also be applicable in the assessment year in question as contended by learned counsel for the revenue. 8. We have heard Shri Yashank Adhyaru, learned senior counsel, Shri Arijit Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned senior counsel, Shri Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel and other learned counsel have been heard for different assessees in this batch of appeals.  “ SUBMISSIONS ” 9. Learned counsel for the appellant (revenue) submit that provisions of Section 14A being clarificatory in nature and Rule 8D is a procedural provision which provided only a machinery for the implementation of sub­sections (2) and (3), Rule 8D is retrospective in nature.  The machinery provisions

6 by which the charging section is to be implemented or workable are to be given retrospective effect, which is co­terminus with the period of operation of the main charging provision. The charging section i.e. Section 14A admittedly being retrospective, the machinery provision, i.e. Rule 8D has also to be retrospective.   10. Learned counsel for the revenue has placed reliance on judgments of this Court, i.e.,  Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Meerut Vs. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons, (1994) 6 SCC 623; Commissioner of Income Tax I, Ahmedabad Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Private Limited, (2008) 9 SCC 622 and Commissioner of Income Tax – III Vs. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana, (2014) 6 SCC 444. 11. Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee refuting the submission of learned counsel for the revenue contends that provisions of Rule 8D are only prospective in nature.  He submits that when a new liability is imposed by a statutory provision then the same cannot be retrospective.  He submits that provisions inserted by Rule 8D are new provision for computing the expenditure which can in no manner be retrospective.  He submits that Rule 8D was made applicable by Fifth Amendment Rules, 2008 providing in Clause 2 i.e. “they shall come into force from the date of their

7 publication in the official gazette”.  He submits that the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide its circular dated 28.12.2006 while explaining the substance of the provision of sub­sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A clearly mention that the aforesaid provisions were to be applicable from assessment year 2007­2008 onwards.  Hence, Rule 8D, which is framed to give effect to the provisions of sub­sections (2) and (3) cannot operate from any date prior to assessment year 2007­2008. 12. Shri Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel appearing for assessee submits that Rule 8D has been amended by Income Tax (14 th  Amendment Rules, 2016) w.e.f. 02.06.2016 by which a new methodology of computing the expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income has been brought in place.  In event, the argument is accepted that Rule 8D is retrospective, which rule shall hold the field, whether Rule 8D as inserted w.e.f. 24.03.2008 or one which has been substituted w.e.f. 02.06.2016? The amendment made w.e.f. 02.06.2016 reinforces that the methodology of computing the expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income is prospective and has been change w.e.f. 02.06.2016, no other interpretation is permissible.  He further submits that subordinate legislation is ordinarily

8 prospective and Rule 8D being subordinate legislation can have no retrospective effect.  Learned counsel for the assessees have also placed reliance on various decisions of this Court, which shall be referred to while considering the submissions in detail. 13. Shri S.S.H. Rizvi, learned counsel appearing for the assessee in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) 16185 of 2016 submits that Revenue has already agreed before the ITAT that matter be remitted to Assessing Officer for fresh decision in light of judgment of the Bombay High Court in  Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company (supra) , h ence, it had no jurisdiction to file an appeal before the High Court.  He submits that High Court has rightly dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, relying on the judgment of the Bomabay High Court in  Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company (supra)  after noticing the fact that no interim order was passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition filed against the said judgment. It has been submitted by Shri Rizvi that no other question arose in the appeal before the High Court hence the Revenue has approached this Court by filing this Special Leave Petition without any basis. Relevant Statutory Provisions  14. Rule 8D has been framed to give effect to the provisions

9 of Section 14A sub­section (2) and (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).  The statutory scheme as delineated by Section 14A has to be understood before correctly appreciating the nature and purport of Rule 8D.  Section 14A was first inserted by Finance Act, 2001 with retrospective effect w.e.f. 01.04.1962.  Section 14A as originally inserted reads as under:­ “ 14A. Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income. ­– For the purposes of computing the total income under this Chapter, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act.”  15. The purpose for which Section 14A was introduced was given in the explanatory memorandum issued with the Finance Bill, 2001, which reads a sunder:­ “ Certain incomes are not includible while computing the total income as these are exempt under various provisions of the Act. There have been cases where deductions have been claimed in respect of such exempt income. This in effect means that the tax incentive given by way of exemptions to certain categories of income is being used to reduce also the tax payable on the non­exempt income by debiting the expenses incurred to earn the exempt income against taxable income. This is against the basic principles of taxation whereby only the net income, i.e., gross income minus the expenditure, is taxed. On the same analogy, the exemption is also in respect of the net income. Expenses incurred can be allowed only to the extent they are relatable to the earning of taxable income. It is proposed to insert a new section 14A so as to clarify the

10 intention of the Legislature since the inception of the Income­tax Act, 1961, that no deduction shall be made in respect of any expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Income­tax Act. The proposed amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 1962 and will accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 1962­1963 and subsequent assessment years.” 16. Section 14A being retrospective in operation w.e.f. 01.04.1962, was being used by the Assessing Officers for reopening the assessments, the Central Board of Direct Taxes came with a clarification vide Circular No. 11 of 2001 dated 23.07.2001.  Para 4 of the Circular stated as follows:­ “ The Board have considered this matter and hereby directs that the assessments where the proceedings have become final before the first day of April, 2001 should not be re­opened under section 147 of the Act to disallow expenditure incurred to earn exempt income by applying the provisions of newly inserted section 14A of the Act.” 17. By Finance Act, 2002, a statutory provision was also inserted by way of proviso to Section 14A.  What was clarified by the Circular have been statutorily engrafted in the proviso to the following effect:­            “ Provided that nothing contained in this section shall empower the assessing officer either to reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the Ist day of April, 2001.”

11 18. By Finance Act, 2006, Section 14A was numbered as sub­section (1) and after sub­section (1) sub­sections (2) and (3) were inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2007 to the following effect:­ "(2) The Assessing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income under this Act in accordance with such method as may be prescribed, if the Assessing Officer, having regard to the accounts of the assessee, is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act.  (3) The provisions of sub­section (2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act.” 19. Memorandum explaining the provisions in Finance Bill, 2006 in reference to the method for allocating expenditure in relation to exempt income mentioned following:­  “ Under the existing provisions of the said section, it has been provided that for the purposes of computing the total income, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Income­tax Act.  It is proposed to number the said section as sub­section (1) thereof and to insert a new sub­section (2) in the said section so as to provide that the Assessing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total

12 income, in accordance with such method as may be laid down by the Central Board of Direct Taxes by rules, if the Assessing Officer having regard to the accounts of the assessee, is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income. It is also proposed to provide that provisions of sub­section (2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income.  This amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2007 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2007­08 and subsequent years.” 20. After the changes made in Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2006, a Circular No.14/2006 dated 28.12.2006 was issued, in which Para 11 of the Circular gave following explanation:­ “ 11.1   Section 14A of the Income­tax Act, 1961, provides that for the purposes of computing the total income under Chapter­IV of the said Act, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Income­tax Act. In the existing provisions of section 14A, however, no method of computing the expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income has been provided for. Consequently, there is considerable dispute between the taxpayers and the Department on the method of determining such expenditure. 11.2   In view of the above, a new sub­section (2) has been inserted in section 14A so as to provide that it would be mandatory for the Assessing Officer to determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income in accordance with such method as may be prescribed. However, the

13 Assessing Officer shall follow the prescribed method if, having regard to the accounts of the assessee, he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income. Provisions of sub­section (2), will also be applicable in relation to a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income. 11.3   Applicability   ­ From assessment year 2007­08 onwards.” 21.  Income Tax Rules, 1962 were amended by notification dated 24.03.2008 by which Rule 8D was inserted to the following effect:­ “ Method for determining amount of expenditure in relation to income not includible in total income. 8D   (1) Where the Assessing Officer, having regard to the accounts of the assessee of a previous year, is not satisfied with – ( a )   the correctness of the claim of expenditure made by the assessee; or ( b )   the claim made by the assessee that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act for such previous year, he shall determine the amount of expenditure in relation to such income in accordance with the provisions of sub­rule (2). (2) The expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income shall be the aggregate of following amounts, namely :— ( i )     the amount of expenditure directly relating to income which does not form part of total income;

14 ( ii )   in a case where the assessee has incurred expenditure by way of interest during the previous year which is not directly attributable to any particular income or receipt, an amount computed in accordance with the following formula, namely :— A   X B C Where A= amount of expenditure by way of interest other than the amount of interest included in clause ( i ) incurred during the previous year; B=   the average of value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the previous year ; C=   the average of total assets as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the previous year; ( iii )   an amount equal to one­half per cent of the average of the value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the previous year." 3.   For the purposes of this rule, the 'total assets' shall mean, total assets as appearing in the balance sheet excluding the increase on account of revaluation of assets but including the decrease on account of revaluation of assets.” 22. After setting out the legislative scheme of Section 14A and Rule 8D, now, we proceed to consider the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties on the question in

15 issue. Important Principles of Statutory Interpretation 23. The legislature has plenary power of legislation within the fields assigned to them, it may legislate prospectively as well as retrospectively. It is a settled principle of statutory construction that every statute is  prima   facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implications made to have retrospective operations. Legal Maxim  “nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet non praeteritis “,  i.e. ‘a new law ought to regulate what is to follow, not the past’, contain a principle of presumption of prospectivity of a statute. 24. Justice G.P. Singh  in “Principles of Statutory Interpretation” (14 th  Edition, in Chapter 6) while dealing with operation of fiscal statute elaborates the principles of statutory interpretation in the following words: “ Fiscal legislation imposing liability is generally governed by the normal presumption that it is not retrospective and it is a cardinal principle of the tax law that the law to be applied is that in force in the assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication. The above rule applies to the charging section and other substantive provisions such as a provision imposing penalty and does not apply to machinery or procedural provisions of a taxing Act which are generally

16 retrospective and apply even to pending proceedings. But a procedural provision, as far as possible, will not be so construed as to affect finality of tax assessment or to open up liability which had become barred. Assessment creates a vested right and an assessee cannot be subjected to reassessment unless a provision to that effect inserted by amendment is either is either expressly or by necessary implication retrospective. A provision which in terms is retrospective and has the effect of opening up liability which had become barred by lapse of time, will be subject to the rule of strict construction. In the absence of a clear implication such a legislation will not be given a greater retrospectivity than is expressly mentioned; nor will it be construed to authorize the Income­tax Authorities to commence proceedings which, before the new Act came into force, had by the expiry of the period then provided become barred. But unambiguous language must be given effect to, even if it results in reopening of assessments which had become final after expiry of the period earlier provided for reopening them. There is no fixed formula for the expression of legislative intent to give retrospectivity to a taxation enactment......” 25. A three­Judge Bench of this court in  1976 (1) SCC 906, Govind Das and others Versus the Income Tax officer and another,  noticing the settled rules of interpretation laid down following in paragraph 11: “ 11.  Now it is a well settled rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial decisions that, unless the terms of a statute expressly so provide or necessarily require it, retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to take away or impair an existing right or create a new obligation or impose a new liability otherwise than as regards matters of procedure. The general rule as stated

17 by  Halsbury  in Vol. 36 of the  Laws of England  (3rd Edn.) and reiterated in several decisions of this Court as well as English courts is that “ all statutes other than those which are merely declaratory or which relate only to matters of procedure or of evidence are prima facie prospective” and retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to affect, alter or destroy an existing right or create a new liability or obligation unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment. If the enactment is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation, it ought to be construed as prospective only. If we apply this principle of interpretation, it is clear that sub­section (6) of Section 171 applies only to a situation where the assessment of a Hindu undivided family is completed under Section 143 or Section 144 of the new Act. It can have no application where the assessment of a Hindu undivided family is completed under the corresponding provisions of the old Act. Such a case would be governed by Section 25­A of the old Act which does not impose any personal liability on the members in case of partial partition and to construe sub­section (6) of Section 171 as applicable in such a case with consequential effect of casting of the members personal liability which did not exist under Section 25­A, would be to give retrospective operation to sub­section (6) of Section 171 which is not warranted either by the express language of that provision or by necessary implication. Sub­section (6) of Section 171 can be given full effect by interpreting it as applicable only in a case where the assessment of a Hindu

18 undivided family is made under Section 143 or Section 144 of the new Act. We cannot, therefore, consistently with the rule of interpretation which denies retrospective operation to a statute which has the effect of creating or imposing a new obligation or liability, construe sub­section (6) of Section 171 as embracing a case where assessment of a Hindu undivided family is made under the provisions of the old Act. Here in the present case, the assessments of the Hindu undivided family for Assessment Years 1950­51 to 1956­57 were completed in accordance with the provisions of the old Act which included Section 25­A and the Income Tax Officer was, therefore, not entitled to avail of the provision enacted in sub­section (6) read with sub­section (7) of Section 171 of the new Act for the purpose of recovering the tax or any part thereof personally from any members of the joint family including the petitioners.” 26. A Constitution Bench of this court speaking through one of us, Dr. Justice A.K.Sikri, in the case of  The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central – 1 New Delhi) Vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., 2015 (1) SCC 1,  while considering as to whether Proviso inserted in Section 113 of Income Tax Act w.e.f. 01.06.2002 is prospective or clarificatory /retrospective noticed the general principles concerning retrospectivity. Following was laid down by the Constitution Bench in Paras 28, 29 and 33: “ 28.  Of the various rules guiding how legislation has to be interpreted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have

19 a retrospective operation. The idea behind the rule is that a current law should govern current activities. Law passed today cannot apply to the events of the past. If we do something today, we do it keeping in view the law of today and in force and not tomorrow’s backward adjustment of it. Our belief in the nature of the law is founded on the bedrock that every human being is entitled to arrange his affairs by relying on the existing law and should not find that his plans have been retrospectively upset. This principle of law is known as  lex prospicit non respicit : law looks forward not backward. As was observed in  Phillips v.  Eyre 6 , a retrospective legislation is contrary to the general principle that legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated when introduced for the first time to deal with future acts ought not to change the character of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the then existing law. 29.  The obvious basis of the principle against retrospectivity is the principle of “ fairness ”, which must be the basis of every legal rule as was observed in  L’Office Cherifien des Phosphates  v. Yamashita­Shinnihon Steamship Co. Ltd. 7  Thus, legislations which modified accrued rights or which impose obligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as prospective unless the legislative intent is clearly to give the enactment a retrospective effect; unless the legislation is for purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former legislation or to explain a former legislation. We need not note the cornucopia of case law available on the subject because aforesaid legal position clearly emerges from the various decisions and this legal position was conceded by the counsel for the parties. In any case, we shall refer to few judgments containing this dicta, a little later. 33.  A Constitution Bench of this Court in Keshavlal Jethalal Shah  v.  Mohanlal Bhagwandas , while considering the nature of amendment to

20 Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act as amended by Gujarat Act 18 of 1965, observed as follows: (AIR p. 1339, para 8) “ 8 . … The amending clause does not seek to explain any pre­existing legislation which was ambiguous or defective. The power of the High Court to entertain a petition for exercising revisional jurisdiction was before the amendment derived from Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the legislature has by the amending Act not attempted to explain the meaning of that provision. An explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the previous Act.” 27. A two­Judge Bench, speaking through one of us, Dr. Justice A. K. Sikri in   Jayam and company Vs. Assistant Commissioner & Ors., (2016) 15 SCC 125,  again reiterated the broad legal principles while testing a retrospective statute in Paragraphs 14 and 18 which is to the following effect: “ 14.  With this, let us advert to the issue on retrospectivity. No doubt, when it comes to fiscal legislation, the legislature has power to make the provision retrospectively. In  R.C. Tobacco (P) Ltd.  v.  Union of India , this Court stated broad legal principles while testing a retrospective statute, in the following manner: (SCC pp. 737­38 & 740, paras 21­22 & 28) “ ( i ) A law cannot be held to be unreasonable merely because it operates retrospectively; ( ii ) The unreasonability must lie in some other additional factors; ( iii ) The retrospective operation of a fiscal statute would have to be found to

21 be unduly oppressive and confiscatory before it can be held to be unreasonable as to violate constitutional norms; ( iv ) Where taxing statute is plainly discriminatory or provides no procedural machinery for assessment and levy of tax or that is confiscatory, courts will be justified in striking down the impugned statute as unconstitutional; ( v ) The other factors being period of retrospectivity and degree of unforeseen or unforeseeable financial burden imposed for the past period; ( vi ) Length of time is not by itself decisive to affect retrospectivity.” ( Jayam and Co. case 1 , SCC Online Mad para 85) 18.  The entire gamut of retrospective operation of fiscal statutes was revisited by this Court in a Constitution Bench judgment in  CIT  v.  Vatika Township (P) Ltd.  in the following manner: (SCC p. 24, paras 33­35) “ 33 . A Constitution Bench of this Court in  Keshavlal Jethalal Shah  v.  Mohanlal Bhagwandas , while considering the nature of amendment to Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act as amended by Gujarat Act 18 of 1965, observed as follows: (AIR p. 1339, para 8) ‘ 8 . … The amending clause does not seek to explain any pre­existing legislation which was ambiguous or defective. The power of the High Court to entertain a petition for exercising revisional jurisdiction was before the amendment derived from Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the legislature has by the amending Act not attempted to explain the meaning of that provision. An explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear up

22 doubts as to the meaning of the previous Act.’ 34 . It would also be pertinent to mention that assessment creates a vested right and an assessee cannot be subjected to reassessment unless a provision to that effect inserted by amendment is either expressly or by necessary implication retrospective. (See  CED  v.  M.A. Merchant .) 35 . We would also like to reproduce hereunder the following observations made by this Court in  Govind Das  v.  ITO , while holding Section 171(6) of the Income Tax Act to be prospective and inapplicable for any assessment year prior to 1­4­1962, the date on which the Income Tax Act came into force: (SCC p. 914, para 11) ‘ 11 . Now it is a well­settled rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial decisions that, unless the terms of a statute expressly so provide or necessarily require it, retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to take away or impair an existing right or create a new obligation or impose a new liability otherwise than as regards matters of procedure. The general rule as stated by Halsbury in Vol. 36 of the Laws of England  (3rd Edn.) and reiterated in several decisions of this Court as well as English courts is that “ all statutes other than those which are merely declaratory or which relate only to matters of procedure or of evidence are prima facie prospective and retrospective

23 operation should not be given to a statute so as to affect, alter or destroy an existing right or create a new liability or obligation unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment.  If the enactment is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation, it ought to be construed as prospective only. ”’” 28. The sub­section (2) and sub­section (3) were inserted in Section 14A by Finance Act, 2006. The memorandum explaining the provision in Finance Bill, 2006, in reference to the methods for allocating expenditure in relation to exempt income as extracted above clearly mentions that amendments brought by Finance Bill, 2006 will take effect from 01.04.2007. The last paragraph of memorandum was to the following effect: “ this amendment will take effect from 01.04.2007 and will accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2007­08 and subsequent years” 29. The Constitution Bench of this court in the  Commissioner of Income Tax and ors. Vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., (Supra) , has taken into consideration the notes of clause appended to the Finance Bill to decipher the nature of the legislative scheme. In paragraph 42.1, Constitution Bench stated as follows:

24 “ 42.1.  “Notes on Clauses” appended to the Finance Bill, 2002 while proposing insertion of proviso categorically states that “this amendment will take effect from 1­6­2002”. These become epigraphic **  words, when seen in contradistinction to other amendments specifically stating those to be clarificatory or retrospective depicting clear intention of the legislature. It can be seen from the same Notes that a few other amendments in the Income Tax Act were made by the same Finance Act specifically making those amendments retrospective. For example, Clause 40 seeks to amend Section 92­F. Clause ( iii­a ) of Section 92­F is amended “so as to  clarify  that the activities mentioned in the said clause include the carrying out of any work in pursuance of a contract” (emphasis supplied). This amendment takes effect retrospectively from 1­4­2002. Various other amendments also take place retrospectively. The Notes on Clauses show that the legislature is fully aware of three concepts: ( i ) prospective amendment with effect from a fixed date; ( ii ) retrospective amendment with effect from a fixed anterior date; and ( iii ) clarificatory amendments which are retrospective in nature.” 30. It is also relevant to know as to how the statutory provisions of Section 14A sub­section (2) and sub­section (3), Rule 8D was understood by the Income Tax department itself. After insertion of sub­section (2) and sub­section (3) in Section 14A by Finance Bill, 2006, circular dated 28.12.2006 was issued by the department wherein paragraph 11.3, following was stated: “ 11.3. Applicability­ from assessment year 2007­2008 onwards.”

25 31. The methodology for determining amount of the expenditure in addition to income not includable in total income was for the first time prescribed by Rule 8D as was envisaged in Section 14A sub­section (2) and sub­section (3). It is also relevant to notice that Constitution Bench in  the Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd.,  has also referred to and relied the CBDT circular to find out the understanding of the Central Board of Direct Tax itself in context of Provision which was in issue in the above case. 32. Explanatory memorandum issued with the Finance Bill, 2006 and the CBDT circular dated 28.12.2006, thus, clearly indicates that department understood that sub­section (2) and sub­section (3) was to be implemented with effect from assessment year 2007­2008. The Rule 8D prescribing the method was brought into statute book with effect from 24.03.2008 to implement sub­section (2) and sub­section (3) with effect from assessment year 2008­2009, is clear indicator of the fact that a new method for computing the expenditure was brought in by the rules which was to be utilized for computing expenditure for the Assessment Year 2008­2009 and onwards. 33. When Section 14A was inserted by Finance Act, 2001, it

26 was with retrospective effect with effect from 01.04.1962 where as Finance Act, 2006, by which sub­section (2) and sub­section (3) to Section 14A were inserted, it was with effect from 01.04.2006 which was mentioned in clause 1(2) of Finance Act, 2006 which was to the following effect: “ 1(2). Save as otherwise provided in this Act, Sections 2 to 57 shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1 st  day of April, 2006.” Rule 8D which was inserted by notification dated 24.03.2008. Rule 1 sub­rule (2) provides as under: “ 1. (1) These rules may be called the  Income­tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2008. (2). They shall come into force from date of their publication in the Official Gazette.” It is, however, well settled that the mere date of enforcement of statutory provisions does not conclude that the statute is prospective in nature. The nature and content of statute have to be looked into to find out the legislative scheme and the nature, effect and consequence of the statute.  34. The submissions which have been much pressed by the counsel for revenue is that the Section 14A of the Act being clarificatory in nature having retrospective operation, Rule 8D, which is a machinery provisions have also to be held to be retrospective to make machinery provisions workable.

27 35. It is to be noted that Section 14A was inserted by Finance Act, 2001 and the provisions were fully workable without their being any mechanism provided for computing the expenditure. Although Section 14A was made effective from 01.04.1962 but Proviso was immediately inserted by Finance Act, 2002, providing that Section 14A shall not empower assessing officer either to reassess under Section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessees under Section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before 01.04.2001. Thus, all concluded transactions prior to 01.04.2001 were made final and not allowed to be re­opened. 36. The memorandum of explanation explaining the provisions of Finance Act, 2006 has clearly mentioned that Section 14 sub­section (2) and sub­section (3) shall be effective with effect from the assessment year 2006­07 alone which is another indicator that provision was intended to operate prospectively. 37. Learned counsel for the appellant have placed heavy reliance on a three­Judge Bench Judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Meerut versus Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons, (1994) 6 SCC 623 . This Court in the above case

28 had to interpret Rule 1­BB, inserted in Wealth Tax, 1957 w.e.f. 01.04.1979.  For Assessment Year 1977­78 and 1978­79 assessment order was passed on 08.02.1983 by which time Rule 1 BB had been introduced in the Rule. The assessee contended that properties to be valued applying the Rule 1­BB.  The claim was rejected and Assessing Officer had valued the immovable property independently of Rule 1­BB. 38. Appeal preferred by assessee was allowed. Appeal by the Revenue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was also dismissed.  High Court also answered the question against the Revenue, which was taken in appeal before this Court.  This Court, after noticing the various principles of “statutory interpretation” held that “procedural law” generally speaking is applicable to pending cases. Interpreting Rule 1­BB following was held in para 23 and 25:  “ 23. We may now turn to the scope and content of Rule 1­BB. The said rule merely provides a choice amongst well­known and well­settled modes of valuation. Even in the absence of Rule 1­BB it would not have have been objectionable, nor would there be any legal impediment, to adopt the mode of valuation embodied in Rule 1­BB, namely, the method of capitalisation of income on a number of years' purchase value. The rule was intended to impart uniformity in valuations and to avoid vagaries and disparities resulting from application of different modes of valuation in different cases where the nature of the property is similar.” 25. On a consideration of the matter we are

29 persuaded to the view that Rule 1­BB is essentially a rule of evidence as to the choice of one of the well accepted methods of valuation in respect of certain kinds of properties with a view to achieving uniformity in valuation and avoiding disparate valuations resulting from application of different methods of valuation respecting properties of a similar nature and character. The view taken by the High Courts, in our opinion, cannot be said to be erroneous.” 39. This Court in the above case held that Rule 1­BB shall be applicable even prior to the enforcement of the rule holding that the said rule merely provides a choice amongst well­known and well­settled modes of valuation.  It was held that even in the absence of Rule 1­BB, it would not have been objectionable to adopt the mode of valuation embodied in Rule 1­BB, namely, the mode of capitalisation of income on a number of years purchased value. The said judgment is, clearly, distinguishable in context of issue which has arisen before us. In the present case, methodology as provided under Rule 8D was neither a well­known nor well­settled mode of computation. The new mode of computation was brought in place by Rule 8D. No Assessing Officer, even in his imagination could have applied the methodology, which was brought in place by Rule 8D. Thus, retrospective operation of Rule 8D cannot be accepted on the strength of law laid down by this Court in the above case.

30 40. The next judgment relied by the Revenue is  Commissioner of Income Tax I, Ahmedabad versus Gold Coin Health Food Private Limited, (2008) 9 SCC 622 .  In the above case, this Court considered the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2002 to Section 271(1)(c)(iii) of the Act. This Court held that the Parliament clarified the position by changing the expression “any” by “if any”, which was not a substantive amendment creating penalty for the first time.  The amendment as specifically noted in the notes of “Clauses” was clarificatory in nature. In para 5 following was laid down:  “ 5. It is pointed out that prior to the amendment,  Section 271(1) (c)(iii) read as follows: "271.(1)(c)(iii) in the cases referred to in clause (c), in addition to any tax payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed twice, the amount of the income in respect of which the particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished. "   It was submitted that bare reading of the provision made the position clear that it was not necessary that income tax must be payable by the assessee as sine qua non for imposition of penalty. The word “any” made the position clear that the penalty was in addition to any tax which may be paid by the assessee.

31 Therefore, even if no tax was payable, the penalty was leviable. It is in that context submitted that even prior to the amendment it could not be read to mean that if no tax was payable by the assessee because of filing a return disclosing loss, the assessee is not liable to pay penalty even if the assessee concealed and/or furnished inaccurate particulars. Because some High Courts took the contradictory view, Parliament clarified the position by changing the expression "any' by "if any". This was not a substantive amendment which created a penalty for the first time. The amendment by the Finance Act   as specifically noted in the Notes on Clauses makes the position clear that the amendment was clarificatory in nature and would apply to all assessments even prior to Assessment Year 2003­04. ” 41. The three­Judge Bench also referred to Departmental Circular dated 24.07.1976, which was found relevant for interpreting for finding out the nature of the amended provision. The three­Judge Bench, further held in Para 16 to the following effect:  "16. The law is well settled that the applicable provision would be the law as it existed on the date of the filing of the return. It is of relevance to note that when any loss is returned in any return it need not necessarily be the loss of the previous year concerned. It may also include carried­forward loss which is required to be set up against future income under  Section 72

32 of the Act. Therefore, the applicable law on the date of filing of the return cannot be confined only to the losses of the previous accounting years.” The three­Judge Bench, after noticing the earlier cases and principles of the statutory interpretation recorded following conclusion in para 21: “ 21. Above being the position, the inevitable conclusion is that Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c)   is clarificatory and not substantive. The view expressed to the contrary in Virtual case, (2007) 9 SCC 665 is not correct. ” The above case is also clearly distinguishable and not applicable in the facts of the present case. It was held that amendments were clarificatory in nature, hence shall operate retrospectively.  42. The Revenue has also relied on the judgment of this Court in  Commissioner of Income Tax­III versus Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana, (2014) 6 SCC 444 .  The above judgment has been relied by the Revenue for the preposition that it is the duty of the Court, while interpreting machinery  provisions of a taxing statute to give effect to its manifest purpose. In para 34 following was laid down:  “ 34. It is the duty of the court while interpreting the machinery provisions of a taxing statute to give effect to its manifest purpose. Wherever the intention to impose liability is clear, the courts

33 ought not be hesitant in espousing a commonsense interpretation to the machinery provisions so that the charge does not fail. The machinery provisions must, no doubt, be so construed as would effectuate the object and purpose of the statute and not defeat the same (Whitney v. IRC, 1926 AC 37 (HL), CIT  v. Mahaliram Ramjidas ,  (1940) 8 ITR 442, Indian United Mills Ltd. v. Commr. of Excess Profits Tax, (1955) 27 ITR 20(SC), and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT,(1963) 48 ITR 1(SC);  CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons , (1994) 6 SCC 623;  CIT v. National Taj Traders, (1980) 1 SCC 370; Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. CTO, (1981) 4 SCC 578. Francis Bennion in Bennion on Statutory Interpretation, 5th Edn., Lexis Nexis in support of the aforesaid proposition put forth as an illustration that since charge made by the legislator in procedural provisions is excepted to be for the general benefit of litigants and others, it is presumed that it applies to pending as well as future proceedings.” 43. There cannot be any dispute to the preposition that machinery provision of taxing statute has to give effect to its manifest purposes.  But the applicability of the machinery provision whether it is prospective or retrospective depends on the content and nature of the Statutory Scheme. In the above case, the Court was not considering the question of prospectivity or retrospectivity of the machinery provision, hence the above case also does not help the appellant in the present case. 44. The Constitution Bench in  Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)­I, New Delhi versus Vatika Township (supra) , after noticing the principle of Statutory Interpretation, as noted

34 above, has laid down the following in para 36,  37 and 39:  “ 36. In  CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd ., AIR 1961 SC 1633, this Court held that as the liability to pay tax is computed according to the law in force at the beginning of the assessment year  i.e. the first day of April, any change in law affecting tax liability after that date though made during the currency of the assessment year, unless specifically made retrospective, does not apply to the assessment for that year.  Answer to the reference 37. When we examine the insertion of proviso in Section 113   of the Act, keeping in view the aforesaid principles, our irresistible conclusion is that the intention of the legislature was to make it prospective in nature. This proviso cannot be treated as declaratory/statutory or curative in nature.” Reasons in support “ 39. The first and foremost poser is as to whether it was possible to make the block assessment with the addition of levy of surcharge, in the absence of proviso to  Section 113 ? In Suresh N. Gupta itself, it was acknowledged and admitted that the position prior to the amendment of Section 113   of the Act whereby the proviso was added, whether surcharge was payable in respect of block assessment or not, was totally ambiguous and unclear. The Court pointed out that some assessing officers had taken the view that no surcharge is leviable. Others were at a loss to apply a particular rate of surcharge as they were not clear as to which  Finance Act , prescribing such

35 rates, was applicable. It is a matter of common knowledge and is also pointed out that the surcharge varies from year to year. However, the assessing officers were indeterminative about the date with reference to which rates provided for in the  Finance Act  were to be made applicable. They had four dates before them viz.:(Suresh N. Gupta case, (2008) 4 SCC 362, SCC p. 379, para 35) (i) Whether surcharge was leviable with reference to the rates provided for in the Finance Act   of the year in which the search was initiated; or (ii) the year in which the search was concluded; or (iii) the year in which the block assessment proceedings under Section 158­BC of the Act were initiated; or (iv) the year in which block assessment order was passed. ” 45. As noted above, that Rule 8D has again been amended by Income Tax (Fourteenth Amendment)  Rules, 2016 w.e.f. 02.06.2016, by which Rule 8D sub­rule (2) has been substituted by a new provision which is to the following effect: [(2) The expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income shall be the aggregate of following amounts, namely:­ (i) the amount of expenditure directly relating to income which does not form part of total income; and

36 (ii) an amount equal to one per cent of the annual average of the monthly averages of the opening and closing balances of the value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of total income: Provided  that the amount referred to in clause (i) and clause (ii) shall not exceed the total expenditure claimed by the assessee.] 46. The method for determining the amount of expenditure brought in force w.e.f. 24.03.2008 has been given a go­bye and a new method has been brought into force w.e.f. 02.06.2016, by interpreting the Rule 8D retrospective, there will be a conflict in applicability of 5 th  & 14 th  Amendment Rules which clearly indicates that the Rule has a prospective operation, which has been prospectively changed by adopting another methodology. 47 . One of the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the assessee also needs to be noticed. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that it is well­settled that subordinate legislation ordinarily is not retrospective unless there are clear indication to the same. Reliance has been placed on judgment of this Court in  State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Shiv Karampal Sahu, (2009) 11 SCC 453 . In para 17 following has been stated:

37 “ 17. Ordinarily, a subordinate legislation should not be construed to be retrospective in operation. The Circular Letter dated 7­5­2003 was given a prospective effect. The father of the respondent died on 19­5­2000. There is nothing to show that even Circular dated 9­8­2000 had been given retrospective effect. In any view of the matter, as the State of Jharkhand in the Circular Letter dated 7­5­2003 adopted the earlier circular letters issued by the State of Bihar only in respect of cases where death had occurred after 15­10­2000 i.e. the date from which the State of Jharkhand came into being, the High Court, in our opinion, committed a serious error in giving retrospective effect thereto indirectly which it could not do directly. Reasons assigned by the High Court, for the reasons aforementioned, are unacceptable. ” There is no indication in Rule 8D to the effect that Rule 8D intended to apply retrospectively.    48. Applying the principles of statutory interpretation for interpreting retrospectivity of a fiscal statute and looking into the nature and purpose of sub­section (2) and sub­section (3)  of Section 14A as well as purpose and intent of Rule 8D coupled with the explanatory notes in the Finance Bill, 2006 and the departmental understanding as reflected by Circular dated 28.12.2006, we are of the considered opinion that Rule 8D was intended to operate prospectively. 49. It is relevant to note that impugned judgment in this appeal relies on earlier judgment of Bombay High Court in

38 Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and Another, (2010) 328 ITR 81(Bom.) , where the Division Bench of the Bombay High court after elaborately considering the principles to determine the prospectivity or retrospectivity of the amendment has concluded that Rule 8D is prospective in nature. Against the aforesaid judgment of the Bombay High court dated 12.08.2010 an appeal was filed in this court which has been decided  vide  its judgment reported in  Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (2017) 7 SCC 421 . This Court, while deciding the above appeal repelled the challenge raised by the assessee regarding  vires  of Section 14A. In para 36 of the judgment, this Court noticed that with regard to retrospectivity of provisions Revenue had filed appeal, hence the said question was not gone into the aforesaid appeal. In the above case, this Court specifically left the question of retrospectivity to be decided in other appeals filed by the Revenue. We thus have proceeded to decide the question of retrospectivity of Rule 8D in these appeals. 50. In view of our opinion as expressed above, dismissal of the appeal by the Bombay High Court is fully sustainable. As held above, the Rule 8D is prospective in operation and could

39 not have been applied to any assessment year prior to Assessment Year 2008­09. 51. In result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.   ..........................J. ( A.K. SIKRI ) ..........................J.      ( ASHOK BHUSHAN ) NEW DELHI, JANUARY 31,2018.

ITEM NO.801 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No. 115/2015 C.I.T-IV NEW DELHI Appellant(s) VERSUS INDIAN SUGAR EXIM CORP.LTD. Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 8596/2014 SLP (C) No. 19614/2013 C.A. No. 10096/2013 SLP (C)No. 27054/2016 C.A. No. 6590/2015 C.A. No. 123/2015 SLP (C)No. 31417/2016 C.A. No. 3267/2013 C.A. No. 18019/2017 Date : 30-01-2018 These matters were mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Parties Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Ms. Kavita Jha, AOR Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. Rajiv Tyagi, AOR Mr. Tarun Singh, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Prit Jha, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matters along with Civil Appeal Nos. 104-109 of 2015. (NIDHI AHUJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

1 ITEM NO.802 COURT NO.5 SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 2165/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER Respondent(s) (PART HEARD BY HON. A.K.SIKRI AND HON. ASHOK BHUSHAN,JJ. List on 4.1.2018 alongwith connected matters in view of order dated 11.12.2017.) WITH SLP(C) No. 20475/2017 (IV-B) SLP(C) No. 23123/2017 (IV-B) SLP(C) No. 32405/2017 (IV-B) SLP(C) No. 36413/2017 (IV-B) Date : 29-01-2018 These matters were mentioned on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Appellant(s) Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Pradeep Kumar Bakshi, AOR Ms. Kavita Jha, AOR Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Ms. Pooja Dhar, AOR M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR Mr. Rajiv Tyagi, AOR M/S. K Ashar & Co., AOR Mr. Munawwar Naseem, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mrs. Bina Gupta, AOR Mr. Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi, AOR Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. Rajan Narain, AOR Mr. Punit Dutt Tyagi, AOR Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. B. S. Banthia, AOR Ms. Aruna Gupta, AOR

2 Mr. Naveen Kumar, AOR Mr. Jagdish Kumar Chawla, AOR Mr. Rustom B. Hathikhanawala, AOR Mr. Bimal Roy Jad, AOR Mr. Vijay Kumar, AOR Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, AOR Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Mr. Birendra Kumar Mishra, AOR Mrs. Shally Bhasin, AOR Mr. Ajay Sharma, AOR Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, AOR (Mentioned by) Mr. Shekhar Prit Jha, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) No. 20475/2017, SLP(C) No. 23123/2017, SLP(C) No. 32405/2017 & SLP(C) No. 36413/2017 List along with C.A. Nos. 110-112/2015 & other connected matters which are coming up for hearing on 30.01.2018. (ASHWANI THAKUR) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER

(REVISED) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4308 OF 2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. CROMPTON GREAVES LTD. Respondent(s) SLP (C)NO. 8918 OF 2017 C.A. NO. 5470 OF 2013 C.A. NO. 5469 OF 2013 C.A. NO. 7166 OF 2013 C.A. NO. 5471 OF 2013 SLP (C)No. 21844 OF 2013 C.A. NO. 7169 OF 2013 O R D E R These are the appeals filed by the Revenue/Commissioner of Income Tax against the order passed by the High Court whereby the High Court has upheld the remand made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to the Assessing Officer. Learned counsel for the assessees has pointed out that after remand, the Assessing Officer has passed orders and has given relief to the assessees of the deletion of amount which pertained to interest amount. Since the Assessing Officer himself has given relief to the assessees after the remand, these matters have become infructuous and are disposed of as such. ......................., J. [ A.K. SIKRI ] ......................., J. New Delhi; [ ASHOK BHUSHAN ] January 23, 2018. 1

Civil Appeal No. 2165/2012 etc. (REVISED) ITEM NO.101+106+3+4 COURT NO.6 SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No. 2165/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 36560/2012 (IX) C.A. No. 117/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 5101/2012 (IX) C.A. No. 118/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 6727/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 119/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 116/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 194/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 114/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 120/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 7395/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 7394/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 121/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 122/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 8507-8509/2012 (IX) C.A. No. 110-112/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 104-109/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 128/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 115/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 21294/2012 (IX) C.A. No. 113/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 7797/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 381/2013 (XIV) C.A. No. 7426/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 123/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 6590/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 8195/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 126/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 8800/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 3273/2013 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 10986/2013 (XVI) C.A. No. 124/2015 (XIV) 2

Civil Appeal No. 2165/2012 etc. C.A. No. 1101/2013 (XIV) C.A. No. 129/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 125/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 3267/2013 (XIV) C.A. No. 127/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 4308/2014 (III) (With IA No.97969/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) SLP(C) No. 21844/2013 (IX) (With IA No.97967/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) SLP(C) No. 19614/2013 (IX) SLP(C) No. 21845/2013 (IX) C.A. No. 6313/2013 (III) C.A. No. 5469/2013 (III) (With IA No.97974/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) C.A. No. 6733/2013 (III) C.A. No. 5471/2013 (III) (With IA No.97979/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) C.A. No. 5470/2013 (III) (With IA No.97954/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) C.A. No. 6191/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8921/2013 (III) C.A. No. 6192/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7169/2013 (III) (With IA No.97971/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) C.A. No. 7166/2013 (III) (With IA No.97973/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) C.A. No. 3355/2015 (III) C.A. No. 7167/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8376/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7172/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7170/2013 (III) C.A. No. 9183/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8341/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7168/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8256/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7171/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7974/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8342/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7173/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8343/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8933/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8909/2013 (III) C.A. No. 9832/2013 (III) C.A. No. 9833/2013 (III) C.A. No. 9184/2013 (III) C.A. No. 3359/2015 (III) C.A. No. 10096/2013 (III) C.A. No. 130/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 8596/2014 (III) SLP(C) No. 36388/2014 (IX) C.A. No. 3781/2015 (III) 3

Civil Appeal No. 2165/2012 etc. C.A. No. 1423/2015 (IV) C.A. No. 3358/2015 (III) SLP(C) No. 18398/2015 (IX) C.A. No. 6294/2015 (III) SLP(C) No. 19303/2015 (IX) SLP(C) No. 20478/2015 (IX) C.A. No. 7892/2015 (III) C.A. No. 9251/2015 (III) C.A. No. 9252/2015 (III) C.A. No. 14525/2015 (III) C.A. No. 8178/2016 (III) C.A. No. 8177/2016 (III) C.A. No. 3279/2016 (III) SLP(C) No. 23624/2016 (IX) SLP(C) No. 16185/2016 (IX) C.A. No. 5044/2016 (XIV) C.A. No. 5417/2016 (III) SLP(C) No. 31417/2016 (XIV) C.A. No. 6019/2016 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 26278/2016 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 27054/2016 (III) SLP(C) No. 4243/2017 (IX) SLP(C) No. 8918/2017 (IX) (With IA No.97964/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) C.A. No. 4539/2017 (III) SLP(C) No. 19098/2017 (XIV) (With IA No.45647/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.45648/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 17499/2017 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 25337/2017 (XIV) (With IA 49025/2017 - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 19735/2017 (XIV) (With IA No.88764/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.88771/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.88768/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING) SLP(C) No. 20475/2017 (IV-B) SLP(C) No. 23123/2017 (IV-B) (With IA No.74705/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.74707/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.74706/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING) Diary No(s). 24346/2017 (IX) C.A. No. 18019/2017 (III) (With IA No.109308/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.109310/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 32405/2017 (IV-B) (With IA No.112490/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 36413/2017 (IV-B) (With IA No.130981/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 36596/2017 (XIV) (With IA No.135619/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.135621/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) 4

Civil Appeal No. 2165/2012 etc. Diary No. 41903/2017 (With IA No. 7413/2018 – FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary NO. 39820/2017 (With I.A. No. 199/2018 – FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No. 39823/2017 (With I.A. No. 723/2018 – FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No. 41203/2017 (With IA No.6333/2018-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.6338/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No. 41890/2017 (With IA No.4747/2018-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.4750/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 23-01-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For parties Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Brajesh Kumar, AOR Ms. Kavita Jha, AOR Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. D. L. Chidananda, Adv. Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Adv. Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv. Ms. Rekha Pandey, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. H. R. Rao, Adv. Mr. Manish Pushkarna, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Satyen Sethi, Adv. Mr. Arta Trana Panda, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Rajat Navet, Adv. Ms. Sanya Talwar, Adv. Mr. K. Pandit, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Bakshi, AOR Mr. S. K. Bagaria, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. K. Ajeet, Adv. 5

Civil Appeal No. 2165/2012 etc. Ms. Parul Shukla, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sayaree Basu Malik, Adv. Mr. Raghav Pandey, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Adv. Mr. Prashant Meharchandani, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Garg, Adv. Ms. Pooja Dhar, AOR Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Rony O. John, Adv. Mr. Abhisaar Bairagi, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kapoor, Adv. M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR Mr. Rajiv Tyagi, AOR Mr. Mihir Ashok Mody, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Sikka, Adv. M/S. K Ashar & Co., AOR Mr. Munawwar Naseem, AOR Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Sharad Agarwal, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Ranjit B. Raut, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, Adv. Mrs. Bina Gupta, AOR Mr. Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi, AOR Mr. N. A. Usmani, Adv. Mr. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv. Mr. Kislaya Parashar, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. Ajay Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Mallika Joshi, Adv. Mr. Rajan Narain, AOR Mr. S. Vasudevan, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Sood, Adv. 6

Civil Appeal No. 2165/2012 etc. Mr. Shashank S., Adv. Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Victor Das, Adv. Ms. Apeksha Mehta, Adv. Mr. Punit Dutt Tyagi, AOR Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, AOR Ms. Monika Ghai, Adv. Mr. B. S. Banthia, AOR Mr. Simran Mehta, Adv. Ms. Aruna Gupta, AOR Mr. Naveen Kumar, AOR Mr. Jagdish Kumar Chawla, AOR Mr. Rustom B. Hathikhanawala, AOR Mr. Bimal Roy Jad, AOR Mr. Swami Nath, Adv. Mr. N. G. Dev, Adv. Ms. Vithika Garg, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kumar, AOR Ms. Vidushi Garg, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Mahna, Adv. Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, AOR Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Mr. Birendra Kumar Mishra, AOR Mr. Vivek Jain, Adv. Mrs. Shally Bhasin, AOR Mr. Ajay Sharma, AOR Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, AOR Mr. Mayank Nagi, Adv. Mr. Tarun Singh, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Prit Jha, AOR 7

Civil Appeal No. 2165/2012 etc. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard the matters preferred by the Revenue. Arguments concluded. Judgment reserved. Written submissions may be filed within a week. C.A. NO. 4308 OF 2014 SLP (C)NO. 8918 OF 2017 C.A. NO. 5470 OF 2013 C.A. NO. 5469 OF 2013 C.A. NO. 7166 OF 2013 C.A. NO. 5471 OF 2013 SLP (C)No. 21844 OF 2013 C.A. NO. 7169 OF 2013 The matters stand disposed of as infructuous in terms of the signed order. C.A. NOS. 110-112 OF 2015 C.A. NOS. 104-109 OF 2015 C.A. NO. 130 OF 2015 C.A. NO. 1423 OF 2015 DIARY NO. 41903 OF 2017 DIARY NO. 39820 OF 2017 DIARY NO. 39823 OF 2017 DIARY NO. 41203 OF 2017 DIARY NO. 41890 OF 2017 List the matters for arguments on 30 th January, 2018. (NIDHI AHUJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER [Revised Signed order is placed on the file.] 8

Civil Appeal No. 2165/2012 etc. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4308 OF 2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. CROMPTON GREAVES LTD. Respondent(s) SLP (C)NO. 8918 OF 2017 C.A. NO. 5470 OF 2013 C.A. NO. 5469 OF 2013 C.A. NO. 7166 OF 2013 C.A. NO. 5471 OF 2013 SLP (C)No. 21844 OF 2013 C.A. NO. 7169 OF 2013 O R D E R These are the appeals filed by the Revenue/Commissioner of Income Tax against the order passed by the High Court whereby the High Court has, after determining the legal issue, remanded the cases to the Assessing Officer. Learned counsel for the assessees has pointed out that after remand, the Assessing Officer has passed orders and has given relief to the assessees of the deletion of amount which pertained to interest amount. Since the Assessing Officer himself has given relief to the assessees after the remand, these matters have become infructuous and are disposed of as such. ......................., J. [ A.K. SIKRI ] ......................., J. New Delhi; [ ASHOK BHUSHAN ] January 23, 2018. 9

Civil Appeal No. 2165/2012 etc. ITEM NO.101+106+3+4 COURT NO.6 SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No. 2165/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 36560/2012 (IX) C.A. No. 117/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 5101/2012 (IX) C.A. No. 118/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 6727/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 119/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 116/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 194/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 114/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 120/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 7395/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 7394/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 121/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 122/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 8507-8509/2012 (IX) C.A. No. 110-112/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 104-109/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 128/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 115/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 21294/2012 (IX) C.A. No. 113/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 7797/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 381/2013 (XIV) C.A. No. 7426/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 123/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 6590/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 8195/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 126/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 8800/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 3273/2013 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 10986/2013 (XVI) C.A. No. 124/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 1101/2013 (XIV) 10

Civil Appeal No. 2165/2012 etc. C.A. No. 129/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 125/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 3267/2013 (XIV) C.A. No. 127/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 4308/2014 (III) (With IA No.97969/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) SLP(C) No. 21844/2013 (IX) (With IA No.97967/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) SLP(C) No. 19614/2013 (IX) SLP(C) No. 21845/2013 (IX) C.A. No. 6313/2013 (III) C.A. No. 5469/2013 (III) (With IA No.97974/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) C.A. No. 6733/2013 (III) C.A. No. 5471/2013 (III) (With IA No.97979/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) C.A. No. 5470/2013 (III) (With IA No.97954/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) C.A. No. 6191/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8921/2013 (III) C.A. No. 6192/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7169/2013 (III) (With IA No.97971/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) C.A. No. 7166/2013 (III) (With IA No.97973/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) C.A. No. 3355/2015 (III) C.A. No. 7167/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8376/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7172/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7170/2013 (III) C.A. No. 9183/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8341/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7168/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8256/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7171/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7974/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8342/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7173/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8343/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8933/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8909/2013 (III) C.A. No. 9832/2013 (III) C.A. No. 9833/2013 (III) C.A. No. 9184/2013 (III) C.A. No. 3359/2015 (III) C.A. No. 10096/2013 (III) C.A. No. 130/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 8596/2014 (III) SLP(C) No. 36388/2014 (IX) C.A. No. 3781/2015 (III) C.A. No. 1423/2015 (IV) 11

Civil Appeal No. 2165/2012 etc. C.A. No. 3358/2015 (III) SLP(C) No. 18398/2015 (IX) C.A. No. 6294/2015 (III) SLP(C) No. 19303/2015 (IX) SLP(C) No. 20478/2015 (IX) C.A. No. 7892/2015 (III) C.A. No. 9251/2015 (III) C.A. No. 9252/2015 (III) C.A. No. 14525/2015 (III) C.A. No. 8178/2016 (III) C.A. No. 8177/2016 (III) C.A. No. 3279/2016 (III) SLP(C) No. 23624/2016 (IX) SLP(C) No. 16185/2016 (IX) C.A. No. 5044/2016 (XIV) C.A. No. 5417/2016 (III) SLP(C) No. 31417/2016 (XIV) C.A. No. 6019/2016 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 26278/2016 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 27054/2016 (III) SLP(C) No. 4243/2017 (IX) SLP(C) No. 8918/2017 (IX) (With IA No.97964/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) C.A. No. 4539/2017 (III) SLP(C) No. 19098/2017 (XIV) (With IA No.45647/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.45648/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 17499/2017 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 25337/2017 (XIV) (With IA 49025/2017 - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 19735/2017 (XIV) (With IA No.88764/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.88771/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.88768/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING) SLP(C) No. 20475/2017 (IV-B) SLP(C) No. 23123/2017 (IV-B) (With IA No.74705/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.74707/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.74706/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING) Diary No(s). 24346/2017 (IX) C.A. No. 18019/2017 (III) (With IA No.109308/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.109310/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 32405/2017 (IV-B) (With IA No.112490/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 36413/2017 (IV-B) (With IA No.130981/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 36596/2017 (XIV) (With IA No.135619/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.135621/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No. 41903/2017 12

Civil Appeal No. 2165/2012 etc. (With IA No. 7413/2018 – FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary NO. 39820/2017 (With I.A. No. 199/2018 – FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No. 39823/2017 (With I.A. No. 723/2018 – FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No. 41203/2017 (With IA No.6333/2018-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.6338/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No. 41890/2017 (With IA No.4747/2018-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.4750/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 23-01-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For parties Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Brajesh Kumar, AOR Ms. Kavita Jha, AOR Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. D. L. Chidananda, Adv. Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Adv. Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv. Ms. Rekha Pandey, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. H. R. Rao, Adv. Mr. Manish Pushkarna, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Satyen Sethi, Adv. Mr. Arta Trana Panda, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Rajat Navet, Adv. Ms. Sanya Talwar, Adv. Mr. K. Pandit, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Bakshi, AOR Mr. S. K. Bagaria, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. K. Ajeet, Adv. Ms. Parul Shukla, Adv. 13

Civil Appeal No. 2165/2012 etc. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sayaree Basu Malik, Adv. Mr. Raghav Pandey, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Adv. Mr. Prashant Meharchandani, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Garg, Adv. Ms. Pooja Dhar, AOR Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Rony O. John, Adv. Mr. Abhisaar Bairagi, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kapoor, Adv. M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR Mr. Rajiv Tyagi, AOR Mr. Mihir Ashok Mody, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Sikka, Adv. M/S. K Ashar & Co., AOR Mr. Munawwar Naseem, AOR Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Sharad Agarwal, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Ranjit B. Raut, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, Adv. Mrs. Bina Gupta, AOR Mr. Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi, AOR Mr. N. A. Usmani, Adv. Mr. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv. Mr. Kislaya Parashar, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. Ajay Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Mallika Joshi, Adv. Mr. Rajan Narain, AOR Mr. S. Vasudevan, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Sood, Adv. Mr. Shashank S., Adv. 14

Civil Appeal No. 2165/2012 etc. Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Victor Das, Adv. Ms. Apeksha Mehta, Adv. Mr. Punit Dutt Tyagi, AOR Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, AOR Ms. Monika Ghai, Adv. Mr. B. S. Banthia, AOR Mr. Simran Mehta, Adv. Ms. Aruna Gupta, AOR Mr. Naveen Kumar, AOR Mr. Jagdish Kumar Chawla, AOR Mr. Rustom B. Hathikhanawala, AOR Mr. Bimal Roy Jad, AOR Mr. Swami Nath, Adv. Mr. N. G. Dev, Adv. Ms. Vithika Garg, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kumar, AOR Ms. Vidushi Garg, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Mahna, Adv. Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, AOR Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Mr. Birendra Kumar Mishra, AOR Mr. Vivek Jain, Adv. Mrs. Shally Bhasin, AOR Mr. Ajay Sharma, AOR Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, AOR Mr. Mayank Nagi, Adv. Mr. Tarun Singh, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Prit Jha, AOR 15

Civil Appeal No. 2165/2012 etc. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard the matters preferred by the Revenue. Arguments concluded. Judgment reserved. Written submissions may be filed within a week. C.A. NO. 4308 OF 2014 SLP (C)NO. 8918 OF 2017 C.A. NO. 5470 OF 2013 C.A. NO. 5469 OF 2013 C.A. NO. 7166 OF 2013 C.A. NO. 5471 OF 2013 SLP (C)No. 21844 OF 2013 C.A. NO. 7169 OF 2013 The matters stand disposed of as infructuous in terms of the signed order. C.A. NOS. 110-112 OF 2015 C.A. NOS. 104-109 OF 2015 C.A. NO. 130 OF 2015 C.A. NO. 1423 OF 2015 DIARY NO. 41903 OF 2017 DIARY NO. 39820 OF 2017 DIARY NO. 39823 OF 2017 DIARY NO. 41203 OF 2017 DIARY NO. 41890 OF 2017 List the matters for arguments on 30 th January, 2018. (NIDHI AHUJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER [Signed order is placed on the file.] 16

ITEM NO.101+102 COURT NO.6 SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No. 2165/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 1423/2015 (IV) SLP(C) No. 4243/2017 (IX) C.A. No. 1101/2013 (XIV) C.A. No. 129/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 125/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 8918/2017 (IX) (With IA No.97964/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) SLP(C) No. 8507-8509/2012 (IX) C.A. No. 4539/2017 (III) C.A. No. 3267/2013 (XIV) C.A. No. 3358/2015 (III) C.A. No. 127/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 3279/2016 (III) SLP(C) No. 36560/2012 (IX) SLP(C) No. 23624/2016 (IX) C.A. No. 130/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 16185/2016 (IX) C.A. No. 110-112/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 104-109/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 5044/2016 (XIV) C.A. No. 5417/2016 (III) C.A. No. 4308/2014 (III) (With IA No.97969/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) SLP(C) No. 21844/2013 (IX) (With IA No.97967/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) SLP(C) No. 19614/2013 (IX) SLP(C) No. 31417/2016 (XIV) C.A. No. 128/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 6019/2016 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 18398/2015 (IX) C.A. No. 6294/2015 (III) SLP(C) No. 21845/2013 (IX) C.A. No. 6313/2013 (III) C.A. No. 5469/2013 (III) (With IA No.97974/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) C.A. No. 6733/2013 (III) 1

Civil Appeal No. 2165/2012 etc. C.A. No. 115/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 21294/2012 (IX) SLP(C) No. 19303/2015 (IX) C.A. No. 113/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 117/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 5101/2012 (IX) C.A. No. 5471/2013 (III) (With IA No.97979/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) C.A. No. 5470/2013 (III) (With IA No.97954/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) C.A. No. 118/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 7797/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 6727/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 119/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 116/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 20478/2015 (IX) C.A. No. 194/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 114/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 6191/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8921/2013 (III) C.A. No. 6192/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7169/2013 (III) (With IA No.97971/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) C.A. No. 7166/2013 (III) (With IA No.97973/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) C.A. No. 3355/2015 (III) C.A. No. 7167/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8376/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7172/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7170/2013 (III) C.A. No. 9183/2013 (III) C.A. No. 120/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 7395/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 8341/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7168/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8256/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7171/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7974/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8342/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7173/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8343/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8933/2013 (III) C.A. No. 381/2013 (XIV) C.A. No. 8596/2014 (III) SLP(C) No. 26278/2016 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 27054/2016 (III) C.A. No. 8909/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7394/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 121/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 122/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 9832/2013 (III) 2

Civil Appeal No. 2165/2012 etc. C.A. No. 9833/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7892/2015 (III) C.A. No. 9184/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7426/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 3359/2015 (III) C.A. No. 10096/2013 (III) C.A. No. 123/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 6590/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 9251/2015 (III) C.A. No. 8195/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 126/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 8800/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 9252/2015 (III) SLP(C) No. 36388/2014 (IX) C.A. No. 14525/2015 (III) C.A. No. 3781/2015 (III) C.A. No. 3273/2013 (XIV) C.A. No. 8178/2016 (III) C.A. No. 8177/2016 (III) SLP(C) No. 10986/2013 (XVI) C.A. No. 124/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 19098/2017 (XIV) (With IA No.45647/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.45648/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 17499/2017 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 25337/2017 (XIV) (With IA 49025/2017 - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) SLP(C) No. 20475/2017 (IV-B) SLP(C) No. 23123/2017 (IV-B) (With IA No.74705/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.74707/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.74706/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING) Diary No(s). 24346/2017 (IX) Diary No(s). 19735/2017 (XIV) (With IA No.88764/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.88771/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.88768/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING) C.A. No. 18019/2017 (III) (With IA No.109308/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.109310/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 32405/2017 (IV-B) (With IA No.112490/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 36413/2017 (IV-B) (With IA No.130981/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No. 36596/2017 (With IA No.135619/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and I.A. No. 135621/2017 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 18-01-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today. 3

Civil Appeal No. 2165/2012 etc. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Parties Mr. Satyen Sethi, Adv. Mr. Arta Trana Panda, Adv. Ms. Gargi Sethee, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Brajesh Kumar, AOR Mr. P. S. Narasimha, ASG. Mr. Y. P. Adhyaru, Sr. Adv. Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv. Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Adv. Mr. D. L. Chidananda, Adv. Mr. Manish Pushkarna, Adv. Mr. H. R. Rao, Adv. Mr. Subhash Achary, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. H. R. Rao, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Pradeep Kumar Bakshi, AOR Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Kavita Jha, AOR Mr. Udit Naresh, Adv. Mr. S. K. Bagaria, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Parul Shukla, Adv. Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Adv. Mr. K. Ajit Singh, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Ms. Pooja Dhar, AOR Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Abhisaar Bairagi, Adv. Ms. Shweta Kabra, Adv. Mr. Sikher Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Juneja, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev K. Kapoor, Adv. M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR 4

Civil Appeal No. 2165/2012 etc. Mr. Rajiv Tyagi, AOR Mr. Mihir Ashok Mody, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Sikka, Adv. M/S. K Ashar & Co., AOR Mr. Munawwar Naseem, AOR Mr. Hizab Fatima, Adv. Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Sharad Agarwal, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Ranjit B. Raut, Adv. Ms. Surabhi Kapoor, Adv. Mrs. Bina Gupta, AOR Mr. Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi, AOR Mr. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv. Mr. Kislaya Parashar, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. K. Gopal, Adv. Mr. Ajay Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Mallika Joshi, Adv. Mr. Rajan Narain, AOR Mr. S. Vasudevan, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Sood, Adv. Mr. Shashank Sharma, Adv. Mr. R. Ramachandran, Adv. Mr. Punit Dutt Tyagi, AOR Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Monika Ghai, Adv. Mr. B. S. Banthia, AOR Mr. Simran Mehta, Adv. Ms. Aruna Gupta, AOR Mr. Naveen Kumar, AOR 5

Civil Appeal No. 2165/2012 etc. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Chawla, AOR Mr. V. P. Gupta, Adv. Mr. P. J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rustom B. Hathikhanawala, AOR Mr. Bimal Roy Jad, AOR Mr. Vijay Kumar, AOR Ms. Vithika Garg, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Mahna, Adv. Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, AOR Mr. Akshat Malpani, Adv. Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Mr. Birendra Kumar Mishra, AOR Mrs. Shally Bhasin, AOR Mr. Ajay Sharma, AOR Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, AOR Mr. Mayank Nagi, Adv. Mr. Tarun Singh, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Prit Jha, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Part-heard. List the matters on 23 rd January, 2018. (NIDHI AHUJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER 6

1 ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.6 SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 2165/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER Respondent(s) (List on 4.1.2018 alongwith connected matters in view of order dated 11.12.2017.) WITH C.A. No. 1423/2015 (IV) SLP(C) No. 4243/2017 (IX) C.A. No. 1101/2013 (XIV) C.A. No. 129/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 125/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 8918/2017 (IX) (With IA No.97964/2017-PERMISSION SLP(C) No. 8507-8509/2012 (IX) C.A. No. 4539/2017 (III) C.A. No. 3267/2013 (XIV) C.A. No. 3358/2015 (III) C.A. No. 127/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 3279/2016 (III) SLP(C) No. 36560/2012 (IX) SLP(C) No. 23624/2016 (IX) C.A. No. 130/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 16185/2016 (IX) C.A. No. 110-112/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 104-109/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 5044/2016 (XIV) C.A. No. 5417/2016 (III) C.A. No. 4308/2014 (III) (With IA No.97969/2017-PERMISSION SLP(C) No. 21844/2013 (IX) (With IA No.97967/2017-PERMISSION SLP(C) No. 19614/2013 (IX) SLP(C) No. 31417/2016 (XIV) C.A. No. 128/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 6019/2016 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 18398/2015 (IX) C.A. No. 6294/2015 (III) SLP(C) No. 21845/2013 (IX) C.A. No. 6313/2013 (III) C.A. No. 5469/2013 (III) (With IA No.97974/2017-PERMISSION C.A. No. 6733/2013 (III)

2 C.A. No. 115/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 21294/2012 (IX) Respondent(s) TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) C.A. No. 2165/2012 etc. SLP(C) No. 19303/2015 (IX) C.A. No. 113/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 117/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 5101/2012 (IX) C.A. No. 5471/2013 (III) (With IA No.97979/2017-PERMISSION C.A. No. 5470/2013 (III) (With IA No.97954/2017-PERMISSION C.A. No. 118/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 7797/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 6727/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 119/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 116/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 20478/2015 (IX) C.A. No. 194/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 114/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 6191/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8921/2013 (III) C.A. No. 6192/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7169/2013 (III) (With IA No.97971/2017-PERMISSION C.A. No. 7166/2013 (III) (With IA No.97973/2017-PERMISSION C.A. No. 3355/2015 (III) C.A. No. 7167/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8376/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7172/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7170/2013 (III) C.A. No. 9183/2013 (III) C.A. No. 120/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 7395/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 8341/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7168/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8256/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7171/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7974/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8342/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7173/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8343/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8933/2013 (III) C.A. No. 381/2013 (XIV) C.A. No. 8596/2014 (III) SLP(C) No. 26278/2016 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 27054/2016 (III) C.A. No. 8909/2013 (III)

3 C.A. No. 7394/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 121/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 122/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 9832/2013 (III) C.A. No. 9833/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7892/2015 (III) TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) C.A. No. 2165/2012 etc. C.A. No. 9184/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7426/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 3359/2015 (III) C.A. No. 10096/2013 (III) C.A. No. 123/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 6590/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 9251/2015 (III) C.A. No. 8195/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 126/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 8800/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 9252/2015 (III) SLP(C) No. 36388/2014 (IX) C.A. No. 14525/2015 (III) C.A. No. 3781/2015 (III) C.A. No. 3273/2013 (XIV) C.A. No. 8178/2016 (III) C.A. No. 8177/2016 (III) SLP(C) No. 10986/2013 (XVI) C.A. No. 124/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 19098/2017 (XIV) (With IA No.45647/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.45648/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 17499/2017 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 25337/2017 (XIV) (With IA 49025/2017 - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) SLP(C) No. 20475/2017 (IV-B) SLP(C) No. 23123/2017 (IV-B) (With IA No.74705/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.74707/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.74706/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING) Diary No(s). 19735/2017 (XIV) (With IA No.88764/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.88771/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.88768/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING) C.A. No. 18019/2017 (III) (With IA No.109308/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.109310/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No. 24346/2017 Date : 17-01-2018 These appeals were called on for hearing today.

4 CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Appellant(s) Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arijit, Adv. Mr. D.L. Chidanand, Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Manish, Adv. Ms. Vandhana Sandhu, Adv. Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. Brajesh Kumar, AOR Ms. Kavita Jha, AOR For Respondent(s) Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Pradeep Kumar Bakshi, AOR Ms. Kavita Jha, AOR Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Garg, Adv. Mr. Prashant Mehar Chandani, Adv. Ms. Pooja Dhar, AOR M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR Mr. Rajiv Tyagi, AOR M/S. K Ashar & Co., AOR Mr. Munawwar Naseem, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mrs. Bina Gupta, AOR Mr. Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi, AOR Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR

5 Mr. Ajay Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Mallika Joshi, Adv. Mr. Rajan Narain, AOR Mr. Punit Dutt Tyagi, AOR Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. B. S. Banthia, AOR Ms. Aruna Gupta, AOR Mr. Naveen Kumar, AOR Mr. Jagdish Kumar Chawla, AOR Mr. Rustom B. Hathikhanawala, AOR Mr. Bimal Roy Jad, AOR Mr. Vijay Kumar, AOR Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, AOR Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Mr. Birendra Kumar Mishra, AOR Mrs. Shally Bhasin, AOR Mr. Ajay Sharma, AOR Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, AOR Mr. Mayank Nagi, Adv. Mr. Tarun Singh, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Prit Jha, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on 18.01.2018 as part-heard. (ASHWANI KUMAR) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 36596/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-05-2017 in ITA No. 264/2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 Petitioner(s) VERSUS MERCANTILE CAPITAL AND FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. Respondent(s) (With IA No.135619/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.135621/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 16-01-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Petitioner(s) Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Tag the matter along with Civil Appeal No. 2165/2012. (NIDHI AHUJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.20 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 36596/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-05-2017 in ITA No. 264/2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 Petitioner(s) VERSUS MERCANTILE CAPITAL AND FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. Respondent(s) (With IA No.135619/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.135621/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 04-01-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, Sr. Adv. Mr. Deepak Prakash, Adv. Ms. Niranjana Singh, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Since many matters are being filed by the Income Tax Department on the same issue which pertains to interpretation of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, it would be in the fitness of things if these matters are decided finally so that a particular view is taken on these matters. List all the connected matters along with this special leave petition on 16.01.2018. (NIDHI AHUJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.101+106 COURT NO.6 SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No. 2165/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 1423/2015 (IV) SLP(C) No. 4243/2017 (IX) C.A. No. 1101/2013 (XIV) C.A. No. 129/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 125/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 8918/2017 (IX) (With IA No.97964/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) SLP(C) No. 8507-8509/2012 (IX) C.A. No. 4539/2017 (III) C.A. No. 3267/2013 (XIV) C.A. No. 3358/2015 (III) C.A. No. 127/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 3279/2016 (III) SLP(C) No. 36560/2012 (IX) SLP(C) No. 23624/2016 (IX) C.A. No. 130/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 16185/2016 (IX) C.A. No. 110-112/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 104-109/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 5044/2016 (XIV) C.A. No. 5417/2016 (III) C.A. No. 4308/2014 (III) (With IA No.97969/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) SLP(C) No. 21844/2013 (IX) (With IA No.97967/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) SLP(C) No. 19614/2013 (IX) SLP(C) No. 31417/2016 (XIV) C.A. No. 128/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 6019/2016 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 18398/2015 (IX) C.A. No. 6294/2015 (III) SLP(C) No. 21845/2013 (IX) C.A. No. 6313/2013 (III) C.A. No. 5469/2013 (III) (With IA No.97974/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) C.A. No. 6733/2013 (III) C.A. No. 115/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 21294/2012 (IX) 1

C.A. No. 2165/2012 etc. SLP(C) No. 19303/2015 (IX) C.A. No. 113/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 117/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 5101/2012 (IX) C.A. No. 5471/2013 (III) (With IA No.97979/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) C.A. No. 5470/2013 (III) (With IA No.97954/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) C.A. No. 118/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 7797/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 6727/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 119/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 116/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 20478/2015 (IX) C.A. No. 194/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 114/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 6191/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8921/2013 (III) C.A. No. 6192/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7169/2013 (III) (With IA No.97971/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) C.A. No. 7166/2013 (III) (With IA No.97973/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) C.A. No. 3355/2015 (III) C.A. No. 7167/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8376/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7172/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7170/2013 (III) C.A. No. 9183/2013 (III) C.A. No. 120/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 7395/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 8341/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7168/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8256/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7171/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7974/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8342/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7173/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8343/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8933/2013 (III) C.A. No. 381/2013 (XIV) C.A. No. 8596/2014 (III) SLP(C) No. 26278/2016 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 27054/2016 (III) C.A. No. 8909/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7394/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 121/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 122/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 9832/2013 (III) C.A. No. 9833/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7892/2015 (III) 2

C.A. No. 2165/2012 etc. C.A. No. 9184/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7426/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 3359/2015 (III) C.A. No. 10096/2013 (III) C.A. No. 123/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 6590/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 9251/2015 (III) C.A. No. 8195/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 126/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 8800/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 9252/2015 (III) SLP(C) No. 36388/2014 (IX) C.A. No. 14525/2015 (III) C.A. No. 3781/2015 (III) C.A. No. 3273/2013 (XIV) C.A. No. 8178/2016 (III) C.A. No. 8177/2016 (III) SLP(C) No. 10986/2013 (XVI) C.A. No. 124/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 19098/2017 (XIV) (With IA No.45647/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.45648/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 17499/2017 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 25337/2017 (XIV) (With IA 49025/2017 - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) SLP(C) No. 20475/2017 (IV-B) SLP(C) No. 23123/2017 (IV-B) (With IA No.74705/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.74707/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.74706/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING) Diary No(s). 19735/2017 (XIV) (With IA No.88764/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.88771/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.88768/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING) C.A. No. 18019/2017 (III) (With IA No.109308/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.109310/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No. 24346/2017 Date : 12-12-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For parties Mr. Satyen Sethi, ADV. Mr. Arta Trana Panda, Adv. 3

C.A. No. 2165/2012 etc. Mr. Mayank N., Adv. Mr. Tarun Singh, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Mr. Manish Pushkarna, Adv. Mr. D. L. Chidanand, Adv. Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Adv. Mr. H. R. Rao, Adv. Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. Brajesh Kumar, AOR Ms. Kavita Jha, AOR Mr. Pradeep Kumar Bakshi, AOR Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Adv. Mr. Prashant Meharchandani, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Garg, Adv. Ms. Pooja Dhar, AOR Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Rony O. John, Adv. Mr. Abhisaar Bairagi, Adv. M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR Mr. Rajiv Tyagi, AOR Mr. Mihir Ashok Mody, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Sikka, Adv. M/S. K Ashar & Co., AOR Mr. Munawwar Naseem, AOR Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Sharad Agrawal, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Abhay A. Jena, Adv. Mr. Ranjit B. Raut, Adv. Mrs. Bina Gupta, AOR Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, Adv. 4

C.A. No. 2165/2012 etc. Mr. Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi, AOR Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. Ajay Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Mallika Joshi, Adv. Mr. Rajan Narain, AOR Mr. S. Vasudevan, Adv. Ms. R. Subhashree, Adv. Mr. Punit Dutt Tyagi, AOR Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Monika Ghai, Adv. Ms. Shyamalima Borah, Adv. Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. B. S. Banthia, AOR Ms. Aruna Gupta, AOR Mr. Naveen Kumar, AOR Mr. Jagdish Kumar Chawla, AOR Mr. Rustom B. Hathikhanawala, AOR Mr. Bimal Roy Jad, AOR Ms. Vithika Garg, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kumar, AOR Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, AOR Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Mr. Birendra Kumar Mishra, AOR Mrs. Shally Bhasin, AOR Mr. Ajay Sharma, AOR Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, AOR Mr. Shekhar Prit Jha, AOR 5

C.A. No. 2165/2012 etc. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R At request of the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, the matters may not be listed this week. (NIDHI AHUJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER 6

ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.11 SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 24346/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-02-2017 in ITA No. 1596/2014 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S ESJAY INTERNATIONAL LTD. Respondent(s) (Only application for directions to be listed before the Hon'ble Court.) Date : 01-12-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA For Petitioner(s) Ms. V.Mohana, Sr. Adv. Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv. Ms. N.Annapoorani, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Tag with Civil Appeal No. 2165 of 2012. (SHASHI SAREEN) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR CUM PS BRANCH OFFICER

ITEM NO.801 COURT NO.5 SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 2165/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER Respondent(s) SLP (C) No. 36560/2012 C.A. No. 117/2015 C.A. No. 5101/2012 C.A. No. 118/2015 C.A. No. 6727/2015 C.A. No. 119/2015 C.A. No. 116/2015 C.A. No. 194/2015 C.A. No. 114/2015 C.A. No. 120/2015 C.A. No. 7395/2012 C.A. No. 7394/2012 C.A. No. 121/2015 C.A. No. 122/2015 SLP (C)Nos. 8507-8509/2012 C.A. Nos. 110-112/2015 C.A. Nos.104-109/2015 C.A. No. 128/2015 C.A. No. 115/2015 1

C.A. No. 2165/2012 etc. SLP (C)No. 21294/2012 C.A. No. 113/2015 C.A. No. 7797/2012 C.A. No. 381/2013 C.A. No. 7426/2012 C.A. No. 123/2015 C.A. No. 6590/2015 C.A. No. 8195/2012 C.A. No. 126/2015 C.A. No. 8800/2012 C.A. No. 3273/2013 SLP (C)No. 10986/2013 C.A. No. 124/2015 C.A. No. 1101/2013 C.A. No. 129/2015 C.A. No. 125/2015 C.A. No. 3267/2013 C.A. No. 127/2015 C.A. No. 4308/2014 SLP (C)No. 21844/2013 SLP (C)No. 19614/2013 SLP (C)No. 21845/2013 C.A. No. 6313/2013 C.A. No. 5469/2013 C.A. No. 6733/2013 2

C.A. No. 2165/2012 etc. C.A. No. 5471/2013 C.A. No. 5470/2013 C.A. No. 6191/2013 C.A. No. 8921/2013 C.A. No. 6192/2013 C.A. No. 7169/2013 C.A. No. 7166/2013 C.A. No. 3355/2015 C.A. No. 7167/2013 C.A. No. 8376/2013 C.A. No. 7172/2013 C.A. No. 7170/2013 C.A. No. 9183/2013 C.A. No. 8341/2013 C.A. No. 7168/2013 C.A. No. 8256/2013 C.A. No. 7171/2013 C.A. No. 7974/2013 C.A. No. 8342/2013 C.A. No. 7173/2013 C.A. No. 8343/2013 C.A. No. 8933/2013 C.A. No. 8909/2013 C.A. No. 9832/2013 C.A. No. 9833/2013 3

C.A. No. 2165/2012 etc. C.A. No. 9184/2013 C.A. No. 3359/2015 C.A. No. 10096/2013 C.A. No. 130/2015 C.A. No. 8596/2014 SLP (C)No. 36388/2014 C.A. No. 3781/2015 C.A. No. 1423/2015 C.A. No. 3358/2015 SLP (C)No. 18398/2015 C.A. No. 6294/2015 SLP (C)No. 19303/2015 SLP (C)No. 20478/2015 C.A. No. 7892/2015 C.A. No. 9251/2015 C.A. No. 9252/2015 C.A. No. 14525/2015 C.A. No. 8178/2016 C.A. No. 8177/2016 C.A. No. 3279/2016 SLP (C)No. 23624/2016 SLP (C)No. 16185/2016 C.A. No. 5044/2016 C.A. No. 5417/2016 SLP (C)No. 31417/2016 4

C.A. No. 2165/2012 etc. C.A. No. 6019/2016 SLP (C)No. 26278/2016 SLP (C)No. 27054/2016 SLP (C)No. 4243/2017 SLP (C)No. 8918/2017 C.A. No. 4539/2017 SLP (C)No. 19098/2017 SLP (C)No. 17499/2017 SLP (C)No. 25337/2017 Diary No. 19735/2017 SLP (C)No. 20475/2017 SLP (C)No. 23123/2017 Date : 04-10-2017 These matters were mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For parties Mr. Ranjit Kumar, SG. (Mentioned by) Mr. P. S. Narsimha, ASG. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. D.L. Chidananda, Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Mr. Manish Pushkarna, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Adv. Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Brajesh Kumar, AOR Ms. Kavita Jha, AOR Mr. Pradeep Kumar Bakshi, AOR 5

C.A. No. 2165/2012 etc. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Ms. Pooja Dhar, AOR Mr. Rajiv Tyagi, AOR K Ashar & Co., AOR Mr. Munawwar Naseem, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Ms. Bina Gupta, AOR Mr. Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi, AOR Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Rony John, Adv. Khaitan & Co., AOR Mr. Rajan Narain, AOR Mr. Punit Dutt Tyagi, AOR Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. B. S. Banthia, AOR Ms. Aruna Gupta, AOR Mr. Naveen Kumar, AOR Mr. Jagdish Kumar Chawla, AOR Mr. Rustom B. Hathikhanawala, AOR Mr. Bimal Roy Jad, AOR Mr. Vijay Kumar, AOR Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, AOR Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Mr. Birendra Kumar Mishra, AOR 6

C.A. No. 2165/2012 etc. Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Mr. Ajay Sharma, AOR Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R At request, the matters stand adjourned to 31.10.2017. (NIDHI AHUJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER 7

(REVISED) ITEM NO.102+4 COURT NO.6 SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No. 2165/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 1423/2015 (IV) SLP(C) No. 4243/2017 (IX) C.A. No. 1101/2013 (XIV) C.A. No. 129/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 125/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 8918/2017 (IX) SLP(C) No. 8507-8509/2012 (IX) C.A. No. 4539/2017 (III) C.A. No. 3267/2013 (XIV) C.A. No. 3358/2015 (III) C.A. No. 127/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 3279/2016 (III) SLP(C) No. 36560/2012 (IX) SLP(C) No. 23624/2016 (IX) C.A. No. 130/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 16185/2016 (IX) C.A. No. 110-112/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 104-109/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 5044/2016 (XIV) C.A. No. 5417/2016 (III) C.A. No. 4308/2014 (III) SLP(C) No. 21844/2013 (IX) SLP(C) No. 19614/2013 (IX) SLP(C) No. 31417/2016 (XIV) C.A. No. 128/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 6019/2016 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 18398/2015 (IX) C.A. No. 6294/2015 (III) SLP(C) No. 21845/2013 (IX) C.A. No. 6313/2013 (III) C.A. No. 5469/2013 (III) C.A. No. 6733/2013 (III) C.A. No. 115/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 21294/2012 (IX) SLP(C) No. 19303/2015 (IX) C.A. No. 113/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 117/2015 (XIV) 1

C.A. No. 2165/2012 etc. C.A. No. 5101/2012 (IX) C.A. No. 5471/2013 (III) C.A. No. 5470/2013 (III) C.A. No. 118/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 7797/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 6727/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 119/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 116/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 20478/2015 (IX) C.A. No. 194/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 114/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 6191/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8921/2013 (III) C.A. No. 6192/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7169/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7166/2013 (III) C.A. No. 3355/2015 (III) C.A. No. 7167/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8376/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7172/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7170/2013 (III) C.A. No. 9183/2013 (III) C.A. No. 120/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 7395/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 8341/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7168/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8256/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7171/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7974/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8342/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7173/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8343/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8933/2013 (III) C.A. No. 381/2013 (XIV) C.A. No. 8596/2014 (III) SLP(C) No. 26278/2016 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 27054/2016 (III) C.A. No. 8909/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7394/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 121/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 122/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 9832/2013 (III) C.A. No. 9833/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7892/2015 (III) C.A. No. 9184/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7426/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 3359/2015 (III) C.A. No. 10096/2013 (III) C.A. No. 123/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 6590/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 9251/2015 (III) 2

C.A. No. 2165/2012 etc. C.A. No. 8195/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 126/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 8800/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 9252/2015 (III) SLP(C) No. 36388/2014 (IX) C.A. No. 14525/2015 (III) C.A. No. 3781/2015 (III) C.A. No. 3273/2013 (XIV) C.A. No. 8178/2016 (III) C.A. No. 8177/2016 (III) SLP(C) No. 10986/2013 (XVI) C.A. No. 124/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 19098/2017 (XIV) (With IA No.45647/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.45648/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 17499/2017 (XIV) Diary No(s). 15600/2017 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 49025/2017) SLP(C) No. 20475/2017 (IV-B) (With IA No.63093/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) SLP(C) No. 23123/2017 (IV-B) (With IA No.74705/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.74707/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.74706/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING) Diary No. 19735/2017 (With IA No.88764/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.88768/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING and IA No.88771/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 19-09-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For parties Mr. Munawwar Naseem, AOR Mr. Kamal K. Jetley, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Jetley, Adv. Mr. Varun Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Rohit Rao N., Adv. Mr. Mukund P. Unny, Adv. Ms. Devahuti Tamuli, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. Rajat Navet, Adv. Mr. Kushagra Pandit, Adv. Mr. Pradeep K. Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Salil Kapoor, Adv. 3

C.A. No. 2165/2012 etc. Ms. Sanat Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swaroop, Adv. Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Sharad Agarwal, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Adv. Mr. P. J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rustom B. Hathikhanawala, AOR Mr. B. P. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Naveen Kumar, Adv. Mr. S. S. H. Rizvi, Adv. Mr. N. A. Usmani, Adv. Mr. S. K. Bagaria, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, ADV. Mr. Vivek Jain, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Parikh, Adv. Ms. Shally Bhasin, Adv. Mr. K. K. Venugopal, AG. Mr. P. S. Narsimha, ASG. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. D. L. Chidananda, Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Adv. Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. Subhash Acharya, Adv. Mr. Manish Pushkarna, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv. Mr. S. K. Pathak, Adv. Mr. H. R. Rao, Adv. Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Garg, Adv. Mr. Prashant Meharchandani, Adv. Ms. Pooja Dhar, Adv. Mr. R. Santhanam, Adv. Mr. A. P. Sinha, Adv. Mr. Brajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. R. Sudhinder, Adv. Ms. Amrita Sarkar, Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur, Adv. 4

C.A. No. 2165/2012 etc. Mr. Bimal Roy, Adv. Mr. Ankush M., Adv. Ms. Vithika Garg, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Monika Ghai, Adv. Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Kavita Jha, Adv. Mr. Bhuwan Dhoopar, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Divakar Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhay A. Jena, Adv. Mr. Ranjit B. Raut, Adv. Ms. Bina Gupta, Adv. Mr. Mihir Ashok Mody, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Sikka, Adv. Mr. Suresh R. Nair, Adv. M/s. K Ashar & Co. Mr. K. Dutta, Adv. Mr. Birendra Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Aashish Verma, Adv. Ms. Poonam Atey, Adv. Ms. Anshula Laroiya, Adv. Mr. Chandra Prakash, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Mahna, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Jureja, Adv. Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, Adv. Mr. Akshat Malpani, Adv. Mr. Ajay Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Mallika Joshi, Adv. Mr. Rajan Narain, Adv. Mr. S. Vasudevan, Adv. Mr. Saurav Sood, Adv. Mr. Shashank Sharma, Adv. Mr. Punit D. Tyagi, Adv. Mr. M. P. Devanath, Adv. Mr. Punit Dutt Tyagi, Adv. 5

C.A. No. 2165/2012 etc. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Minocha, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Pradeep Kumar Bakshi, AOR Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi, AOR M/s. Khaitan & Co., AOR Mr. B. S. Banthia, AOR Ms. Aruna Gupta, AOR Mr. Naveen Kumar, AOR Mr. Jagdish Kumar Chawla, AOR Mr. Vijay Kumar, AOR Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Part heard. List the matters on 04.10.2017. (NIDHI AHUJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER 6

C.A. No. 2165/2012 etc. ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.6 SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No. 2165/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 1423/2015 (IV) SLP(C) No. 4243/2017 (IX) C.A. No. 1101/2013 (XIV) C.A. No. 129/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 125/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 8918/2017 (IX) SLP(C) No. 8507-8509/2012 (IX) C.A. No. 4539/2017 (III) C.A. No. 3267/2013 (XIV) C.A. No. 3358/2015 (III) C.A. No. 127/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 3279/2016 (III) SLP(C) No. 36560/2012 (IX) SLP(C) No. 23624/2016 (IX) C.A. No. 130/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 16185/2016 (IX) C.A. No. 110-112/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 104-109/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 5044/2016 (XIV) C.A. No. 5417/2016 (III) C.A. No. 4308/2014 (III) SLP(C) No. 21844/2013 (IX) SLP(C) No. 19614/2013 (IX) SLP(C) No. 31417/2016 (XIV) C.A. No. 128/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 6019/2016 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 18398/2015 (IX) C.A. No. 6294/2015 (III) SLP(C) No. 21845/2013 (IX) C.A. No. 6313/2013 (III) C.A. No. 5469/2013 (III) C.A. No. 6733/2013 (III) C.A. No. 115/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 21294/2012 (IX) SLP(C) No. 19303/2015 (IX) C.A. No. 113/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 117/2015 (XIV) 7

C.A. No. 2165/2012 etc. C.A. No. 5101/2012 (IX) C.A. No. 5471/2013 (III) C.A. No. 5470/2013 (III) C.A. No. 118/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 7797/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 6727/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 119/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 116/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 20478/2015 (IX) C.A. No. 194/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 114/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 6191/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8921/2013 (III) C.A. No. 6192/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7169/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7166/2013 (III) C.A. No. 3355/2015 (III) C.A. No. 7167/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8376/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7172/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7170/2013 (III) C.A. No. 9183/2013 (III) C.A. No. 120/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 7395/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 8341/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7168/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8256/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7171/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7974/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8342/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7173/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8343/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8933/2013 (III) C.A. No. 381/2013 (XIV) C.A. No. 8596/2014 (III) SLP(C) No. 26278/2016 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 27054/2016 (III) C.A. No. 8909/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7394/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 121/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 122/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 9832/2013 (III) C.A. No. 9833/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7892/2015 (III) C.A. No. 9184/2013 (III) C.A. No. 7426/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 3359/2015 (III) C.A. No. 10096/2013 (III) C.A. No. 123/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 6590/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 9251/2015 (III) 8

C.A. No. 2165/2012 etc. C.A. No. 8195/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 126/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 8800/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 9252/2015 (III) SLP(C) No. 36388/2014 (IX) C.A. No. 14525/2015 (III) C.A. No. 3781/2015 (III) C.A. No. 3273/2013 (XIV) C.A. No. 8178/2016 (III) C.A. No. 8177/2016 (III) SLP(C) No. 10986/2013 (XVI) C.A. No. 124/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 19098/2017 (XIV) (With IA No.45647/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.45648/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 17499/2017 (XIV) Diary No(s). 15600/2017 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 49025/2017) SLP(C) No. 20475/2017 (IV-B) (With IA No.63093/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) SLP(C) No. 23123/2017 (IV-B) (With IA No.74705/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.74707/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.74706/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING) Date : 19-09-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For parties Mr. Munawwar Naseem, AOR Mr. Kamal K. Jetley, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Jetley, Adv. Mr. Varun Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Rohit Rao N., Adv. Mr. Mukund P. Unny, Adv. Ms. Devahuti Tamuli, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. Rajat Navet, Adv. Mr. Kushagra Pandit, Adv. Mr. Pradeep K. Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Sanat Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv. 9

C.A. No. 2165/2012 etc. Mr. Praveen Swaroop, Adv. Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Sharad Agarwal, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Adv. Mr. P. J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rustom B. Hathikhanawala, AOR Mr. B. P. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Naveen Kumar, Adv. Mr. S. S. H. Rizvi, Adv. Mr. N. A. Usmani, Adv. Mr. S. K. Bagaria, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, ADV. Mr. Vivek Jain, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Parikh, Adv. Ms. Shally Bhasin, Adv. Mr. K. K. Venugopal, AG. Mr. P. S. Narsimha, ASG. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. D. L. Chidananda, Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Adv. Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. Subhash Acharya, Adv. Mr. Manish Pushkarna, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv. Mr. S. K. Pathak, Adv. Mr. H. R. Rao, Adv. Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Garg, Adv. Mr. Prashant Meharchandani, Adv. Ms. Pooja Dhar, Adv. Mr. R. Santhanam, Adv. Mr. A. P. Sinha, Adv. Mr. Brajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. R. Sudhinder, Adv. Ms. Amrita Sarkar, Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur, Adv. Mr. Bimal Roy, Adv. Mr. Ankush M., Adv. 10

C.A. No. 2165/2012 etc. Ms. Vithika Garg, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Monika Ghai, Adv. Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Kavita Jha, Adv. Mr. Bhuwan Dhoopar, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Divakar Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhay A. Jena, Adv. Mr. Ranjit B. Raut, Adv. Ms. Bina Gupta, Adv. Mr. Mihir Ashok Mody, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Sikka, Adv. Mr. Suresh R. Nair, Adv. M/s. K Ashar & Co. Mr. K. Dutta, Adv. Mr. Birendra Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Aashish Verma, Adv. Ms. Poonam Atey, Adv. Ms. Anshula Laroiya, Adv. Mr. Chandra Prakash, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Mahna, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Jureja, Adv. Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, Adv. Mr. Akshat Malpani, Adv. Mr. Ajay Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Mallika Joshi, Adv. Mr. Rajan Narain, Adv. Mr. S. Vasudevan, Adv. Mr. Saurav Sood, Adv. Mr. Shashank Sharma, Adv. Mr. Punit D. Tyagi, Adv. Mr. M. P. Devanath, Adv. Mr. Punit Dutt Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv. 11

C.A. No. 2165/2012 etc. Mr. Dinesh Minocha, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Pradeep Kumar Bakshi, AOR Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi, AOR M/s. Khaitan & Co., AOR Mr. B. S. Banthia, AOR Ms. Aruna Gupta, AOR Mr. Naveen Kumar, AOR Mr. Jagdish Kumar Chawla, AOR Mr. Vijay Kumar, AOR Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Part heard. List the matters on 04.10.2017. (NIDHI AHUJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER 12

ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.6 SECTION S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Diary No. 19735/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-03-2017 in ITA No. 896/2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS MALANA POWER CO. LTD. Respondent(s) (With IA No.88764/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.88771/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.88768/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING) Date : 18-09-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Petitioner(s) Ms. Rekha Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rohit Rao, Adv. Mr. Mukund P., Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The matter be tagged along with Civil Appeal No. 2165 of 2012 and other connected matters. (NIDHI AHUJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.19 COURT NO.10 SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Diary No(s). 24346/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-02-2017 in ITA No. 1596/2014 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S ESJAY INTERNATIONAL LTD. Respondent(s) ( IA No.83790/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Date : 11-09-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL For Petitioner(s) Mrs. N. Annapoorani, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Tag along with Civil Appeal No. 7019/2011. (R. NATARAJAN) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.7 SECTION S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) …...Diary No(s). 14590/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-12-2016 in ITA No. 819/2016 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7 Petitioner(s) VERSUS PTC INDIA LTD Respondent(s) ( IA No.45647/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.45648/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 24-07-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Ms. Anita Sahani, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Grover, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice. Tag with SLP(C) No. 18398 of 2015 and other connected matters. (ASHWANI KUMAR) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.6 SECTION S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (c) No. .....Diary No(s). 15399/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-12-2016 in ITA No. 820/2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7 Petitioner(s) VERSUS PTC INDIA LTD. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION AND I.R.) Date : 04-07-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar, SG Mr. P.K. Mullick, Adv. Ms. Anita Sahni, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Adv UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice. To be tagged with C.A. No. 2165/2012 and other connected matters and shall be listed on the day when C.A. NO. 2951 of 2012 as well as other similar cases are listed. (ASHWANI KUMAR) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.28 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)...CC No(s).5871/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13/10/2016 in ITA No. 51/2016 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur) PR. COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX 3, CIVIL LINES, NAGPUR Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 27/03/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Grover, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No.104-109 of 2015. (Neetu Khajuria) Court Master (Asha Soni) Court Master

Listed on: 27­3­2017 Court No.:  4     Item No.:   28            SECTION III­A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO...CC 5871 OF 2017 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition.) THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 3 ...PETITIONER VERSUS M/S. BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LIMITED            ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above­mentioned is filed against the Impugned and final Orders dated 13 th  October, 2016 of the High Court of Judicature at Bomay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Income Tax Appeal No. 51 of 2016 and is barred by time by 41 days.  The Counsel for the petitioner has filed Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that SLP(C) No. 27054 of 2016 entitled “ PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX­1 vs D B CORP LTD. ”, arising out of similar issue which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 1 st  February, 2017 with group of matters (main matter Civil Appeal No. 7020 of 2011) when the Hon'ble Court has directed to list the matter after pronouncement of Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 7020 of 2011. (Copy of the Order dated 1 st  February, 2017 is enclosed herewith for reference.) The matter alongwith application above mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Ms. Anil Katiyar, Advocate           ASSISTANT REGISTRAR bs5

:ITEM NO.28 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)...CC No(s).5871/2017(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13/10/2016in ITA No. 51/2016 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur)PR. COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX 3, CIVIL LINES, NAGPUR Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date : 27/03/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Maninder Singh, ASGMs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv.Ms. Meenakshi Grover, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RDelay condoned.Leave granted.Tag with Civil Appeal No.104-109 of 2015.(Neetu Khajuria)Court Master (Asha Soni)Court Master

ITEM NO.31 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)...CC No(s). 5022/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18/08/2016 in ITA No. 279/2014 passed by the High Court of Bombay) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S CROMPTON GREAVES LTD Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 20/03/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA For Petitioner(s) Mr. N.K. Kaul, Kaul, ASG Ms. Anita Sahni,Adv. Mr. Sanyat Lodha, Adv. Mr. Deepak Joshi, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Since similar matters have been directed to be listed after pronouncement of judgment in Civil Appeal No.7020 of 2011, consequently, we condone the delay in filing the special leave petition, issue notice and tag this case along with Civil Appeal No.7019 of 2011 and other connected cases. (Neetu Khajuria) Court Master (Asha Soni) Court Master

Listed on: 20­3­2017 Court No.: 4 Item No.: 31              SECTION III­A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO...CC 5022 OF 2017 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition.) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 6 ...PETITIONER VERSUS M/S CROMPTON GREAVES LTD.            ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above­mentioned is filed against the final Order dated 18 th  August, 2016 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Income Tax Appeal No. 279 of 2014 and is barred by time by 84 days.  The Counsel for the petitioner has filed Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2011 entitled “ GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO.LTD. vs DY.COMMR.OF I.T MUMBAI & ORS. ”, arising out of similar issue which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 1 st  February, 2017 with group of matters (main case Civil Appeal No. 7020 of 2011) when the Hon'ble Court has directed to list the matter after pronouncement of Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 7020 of 2011. (Copy of the Order dated 1 st  February, 2017 is enclosed herewith for reference.)  The matter alongwith application above mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Ms. Anil Katiyar, Advocate           ASSISTANT REGISTRAR bs5

FITEM NO.31 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)...CC No(s). 5022/2017(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18/08/2016in ITA No. 279/2014 passed by the High Court of Bombay)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S CROMPTON GREAVES LTD Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date : 20/03/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. N.K. Kaul, Kaul, ASGMs. Anita Sahni,Adv.Mr. Sanyat Lodha, Adv.Mr. Deepak Joshi, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RSince similar matters have been directed tobe listed after pronouncement of judgment in CivilAppeal No.7020 of 2011, consequently, we condonethe delay in filing the special leave petition,issue notice and tag this case along with CivilAppeal No.7019 of 2011 and other connected cases.(Neetu Khajuria)Court Master (Asha Soni)Court Master

ITEM NO.37 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C)......CC NO(S). 2727/2017 (ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04/07/2016 IN ITA NO. 17/2014 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 PETITIONER(S) VERSUS M/S URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDING PVT. LTD. RESPONDENT(S) (WITH APPLN. (S) FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND OFFICE REPORT) Date : 06/02/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. N.K. Kaul, ASG Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.Wasim.A. Qadri, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Mishra, Adv. Mr. Samar Kachwaha, Adv. Mr. Raghavendra Bajaj, Adv. Mr./Ms.B. Vivekananda, Adv. Mr. Divyanshu Srivatsava, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material. Delay condoned. Exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment is granted. Issue notice. Tag with Civil Appeal No.7019 of 2011. [VINOD LAKHINA] COURT MASTER [ASHA SONI] COURT MASTER

Listed on: 6­2­2017 Court No.:   4         Item No.:   37        SECTION III­A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO..CC 2727 OF 2017 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition.) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX­7 ...PETITIONER VERSUS M/S URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDING PVT. LTD.            ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above­mentioned is filed against the Final Judgment and Order dated 4 th  July, 2016 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in ITA No. 17 of 2014 and is barred by time by 102 days.  The Counsel for the petitioner has filed Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition.  It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that  SLP(C) No. 3516  of 2017 @ S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 1766 of 2017 entitled  “COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX­ CENTRAL­II vs M/S. ENERCON INDIA LTD.”, arising out of similar issue  which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 30 th  January, 2017 when the Hon'ble Court has directed to issue notice. (Copy of the Order dated 30 th  January, 2017 is enclosed herewith for reference.)  It is also submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2011 @ SLP(C) No. 36515 of 2010 entitled “ GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO.LTD. vs DY.COMMR.OF I.T MUMBAI & ORS. ” arising out of relied upon Judgment which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 12 th  August, 2011 when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of the Order dated 12 th  August, 2011 is enclosed herewith for reference.)  It is lastly submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2011 @ SLP(C) No. 36515 of 2010 entitled “ GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO.LTD. vs DY.COMMR.OF I.T MUMBAI & ORS. ” was also listed before the Hon'ble Court on 1 st  February, 2017. Copy of order is awaited. The matter alongwith application above mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017  ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Ms. Anil Katiyar, Advocate            ASSISTANT REGISTRAR bs5

ITEM NO.37 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C)......CC NO(S).2727/2017(ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04/07/2016IN ITA NO. 17/2014 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 PETITIONER(S) VERSUSM/S URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDING PVT. LTD. RESPONDENT(S)(WITH APPLN. (S) FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND OFFICE REPORT)Date : 06/02/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHANFor Petitioner(s) Mr. N.K. Kaul, ASGMr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv.Mr. S.Wasim.A. Qadri, Adv.Mr. Bhuvan Mishra, Adv.Mr. Samar Kachwaha, Adv. Mr. Raghavendra Bajaj, Adv.Mr./Ms.B. Vivekananda, Adv.Mr. Divyanshu Srivatsava, Adv.Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. For Respondent(s)UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the followingO R D E RHeard the learned counsel for the petitioner andperused the relevant material.Delay condoned.Exemption from filing certified copy of the impugnedjudgment is granted. Issue notice.Tag with Civil Appeal No.7019 of 2011.[VINOD LAKHINA]COURT MASTER [ASHA SONI]COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.25 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWAL Civil Appeal No(s). 113/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI Appellant(s) VERSUS STAINLESS INVESTMENTS LTD. Respondent(s) (with office report) WITH C.A. No. 6727/2015 Date : 16/12/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr Om Prakash, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Last opportunity of four weeks is granted for furnishing correct address of the sole respondent. Notice thereafter be issued. Dasti in addition is allowed. List again on 1.2.2017. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar

Listed on – 16.12.2016                             Court No. ­ R­ 1                             Item No. ­      15 SECTION III­A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 113 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPEAL  NO.  6727 OF 2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI                                            ....APPELLANT VERSUS STAINLESS INVESTMENTS LTD.                                                                ....RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 113 OF 2015 There is sole Respondent in the matter above­mentioned. It is submitted that High Court  vide its letter dated 7 th  November, 2015 has informed this Registry  that Notice of Lodgement of Petition of Appeal could not be served on the sole Respondent for want of correct address. The Advocate was asked vide this Registry's letter dated 4 th  January, 2016  to file the latest and correct address of the sole Respondent but he has not done the needful so far. CIVIL APPEAL NO.  6727 OF 2015 It is submitted High Court  has informed this  Registry vide its letter dated  7 th November, 2015 that Notice of Lodgement of Petition of Appeal could not be served on the sole Respondent for want of correct address. The Advocate was asked vide this Registry's letter dated 19 th  November, 2015 but he has not done the needful so far. It is submitted for the information of the Court that the main matter i.e. Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2011 to be listed before the Hon'ble Court on 11 th  January, 2017. The matters above­mentioned are listed before the Ld. Registrar's Court for Orders. DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016.                ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:­ Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate. Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate.                         ASSISTANT REGISTRAR pr3

êITEM NO.25 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWAL Civil Appeal No(s). 113/2015COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI Appellant(s) VERSUSSTAINLESS INVESTMENTS LTD. Respondent(s)(with office report)WITHC.A. No. 6727/2015Date : 16/12/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr Om Prakash, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RLast opportunity of four weeks is granted forfurnishing correct address of the sole respondent. Noticethereafter be issued. Dasti in addition is allowed.List again on 1.2.2017. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar

ITEM NO.22 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)No........./2016 (CC No(s).15891/2016) (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/02/2016 in ITA No.136/2016 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI - 02 Petitioner(s) VERSUS MANSROVER INVESTMENTS LTD. Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP) Date : 02/09/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atma Ram Nadkarni,ASG Mr. Arijit Prasad,Adv. mr. H.R. Roo,Adv. For Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice by speed post, returnable on 17 th October, 2016. Tag with Civil Appeal Nos.104-109/2015. (Sarita Purohit) (Sneh Bala Mehra ) Court Master Assistant Registrar

\204ITEM NO.22 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)No........./2016 (CC No(s).15891/2016)(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/02/2016 in ITA No.136/2016 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI - 02 Petitioner(s) VERSUSMANSROVER INVESTMENTS LTD. Respondent(s)(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP)Date : 02/09/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAOFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Atma Ram Nadkarni,ASGMr. Arijit Prasad,Adv.mr. H.R. Roo,Adv.For Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RDelay condoned.Issue notice by speed post, returnable on 17 thOctober, 2016.Tag with Civil Appeal Nos.104-109/2015. (Sarita Purohit) (Sneh Bala Mehra ) Court Master Assistant Registrar

ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 140/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15/06/2015 in ITA No. 1354/2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S FIRESTONE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. Respondent(s) (with office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 141/2016 (With Office Report) Date : 16/08/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Narasimha, ASG Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Mr. S.A. Haseeb, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Chandra Prakash,Adv. Mr. Ajay Sharma,Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv. Mr. J.K. Mohpatra, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. Tag with C.A. No. 7019 of 2011. (Rajni Mukhi) (Renu Diwan ) SR. P.A. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Listed on:   16 ­8 ­ 2016 Court No.­    9 Item No. ­     2 SECTION III­A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NOS. 140 and 141 OF 2016 THE CIT ­CENTRAL­III ...PETITIONER VERSUS M/S FIRESTONE INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD. ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT  The  matters above mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 5 th January, 2016, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following order:­ “Delay condoned. Issue notice on Question No. (C) in the Special Leave Petitions.” Accordingly, notice was issued to the sole respondent in both the matters. Mr. Chandra Prakash, Advocate and Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate has filed vakalatnama and memo of appearance on behalf of sole respondent in SLP 140 of 2016 and 141 of 2016 respectively but both the Counsel have not filed counter affidavit.  Thereafter the matter abvoe­mentioned was listed before the Ld. Registrar's Court for not filing of counter affidavit on 3 rd  March, 2016 and 30 th  June, 2016 when he was pleased to pass the following order:­ 3    rd      March, 2016  “Four weeks time is granted to sole respondent to file counter affidavit in both the matters. List again on 30.06.2016.” 30    th      June, 2016 “Four weeks' time as last opportunity, is granted to the sole respondent in both the matters for filing counter affidavit. Registry to process the matter for listing thereafter before the Hon'ble Court, irrespective of the fact whether counter affidavit is filed or not.”

It is submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that Counter Affidavit has not been filed in both the matters so far. The matters  above­mentioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this Office Report.         DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO:  Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate  PB4                     ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ô ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 140/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15/06/2015 in ITA No. 1354/2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S FIRESTONE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. Respondent(s) (with office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 141/2016 (With Office Report) Date : 16/08/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Narasimha, ASG Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Mr. S.A. Haseeb, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Chandra Prakash,Adv. Mr. Ajay Sharma,Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv. Mr. J.K. Mohpatra, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. Tag with C.A. No. 7019 of 2011.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byJAYANT KUMAR ARORADate: 2016.08.1717:12:25 IST (Rajni Mukhi) (Renu Diwan)Reason: SR. P.A. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.22 IN COURT NO.6 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)...CC No(s).11496/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14/07/2015 in ITA No. 1733/2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing and refiling SLP and office report) Date : 08/08/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anurag Singh, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Taneja, Adv. Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Adv. For wMrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice. Tag with Civil Appeal No.8376 of 2013. (Neetu Khajuria) Court Master (Asha Soni) Court Master

SECTION IIIA   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL  (C) NO....CC 11496 OF 2016 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 2 (Application for condonation of delay in re­filing  S pecial Leave Petition) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX­6, MUMBAI ...PETITIONER VERSUS M/S KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD.           ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above­mentioned is filed against the impugned final judgment and Order dated 14 th  July, 2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in I.T.A No. 1733 of 2013 and is barred by time by 149 days. The counsel for the petitioner has filed application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. Counsel for the petitioner has also filed application for condonation of dealy in re­filing the Special Leave Petition after curing the defects which is barred by time by 46 days. It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that Civil Appeal No. 3358 of 2015 @ SLP (C) No. 10778 of 2015 @ SLP (C) No...CC 5922 of 2015 entitled “COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs M/S NATIONAL COMMODITY AND DERIVATIVES EXCHANGE LIMITED” arising from identical issue which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 6 th  April, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave (Copy of order dated 6 th  April, 2015 is enclosed herewith for reference).  It is also submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that Civil Appeal No. 10474 of 2014 @ SLP (C) No. 31793 of 2014 @ SLP (C) No...CC 18245 of 2014 entitled “COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD.” referred to as annexure P­6 which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 19 th  November, 2014, when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave (Copy of order dated 19 th  November, 2014 is annexed as Annexure P­6 at Page no. 159 to 160 of the paper books).

It is also submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that SLP (C) Nos. 34428­29 of 2013 @ SLP (C) Nos...CC 18976­77 of 2016 entitled “DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. vs M/S.GODREJ & BOYCE MFG.CO.LTD” arising out of relied upon order which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 28 th  October, 2013, when the Hon'ble Court has dismissed the same. (Copy of order dated 28 th  October, 2013 is enclosed herewith for reference).  It is also submitted that counsel for the petitioner has filed additional documents  as per undertaking letter. Copy of the same has been included in the paper books. The matter alongwith application above mentioned is listed before Hon'ble Court with this Office Report. DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2016.       ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy To:­ Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate       ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ac3

\202ITEM NO.22 IN COURT NO.6 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)...CC No(s).11496/2016(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated14/07/2015 in ITA No. 1733/2013 passed by the High Court ofBombay)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD. Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing and refiling SLP and officereport)Date : 08/08/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALITFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Anurag Singh, Adv.Ms. Jyoti Taneja, Adv.Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Adv. For wMrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RDelay condoned.Issue notice.Tag with Civil Appeal No.8376 of 2013.(Neetu Khajuria)Court Master (Asha Soni)Court Master

ITEM NO.89 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWAL Civil Appeal No(s). 3358/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S NATIONAL COMMODITY AND DERIVATIVES EXCHANGE LIMITED Respondent(s) Date : 19/07/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Govind Narayan, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) M/s K Ashar & Co.,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Service is complete. Parties have not filed the statement of case, despite the expiry of stipulated time. It is no more a mandate after the amendment in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. Registry to process the matter for listing before the Hon'ble Court, as per rules. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar

SECTION III­A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL  NO. 3358  of  2015 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 10 (1)    ...APPELLANT VERSUS M/S NATIONAL COMMODITY AND DERIVATIVES EXCHANGE LTD. ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT FOR PRE­FINAL HEARING The office report is prepared as per circular No. F. 41/Jul./2008 dated 17 th  December, 2008. (A) There is sole respondent and represented through counsel. (B) Not applicable. (C) No appliction for substitution is pending. (D) Counsel for both parties have not filed the statement of case so far. Time expired  (F) Not applicable. The matter above­mentined is listed  before the Ld. Registrar's Court for Pre­final Hearing. DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2016     A S SISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO:­ Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate  Mr. K Ashar & Co., Advocate  ASSISTANT REGISTRAR PB4

À ITEM NO.89 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWAL Civil Appeal No(s). 3358/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S NATIONAL COMMODITY AND DERIVATIVES EXCHANGE LIMITED Respondent(s) Date : 19/07/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Govind Narayan, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) M/s K Ashar & Co.,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Service is complete. Parties have not filed the statement of case, despite the expiry of stipulated time. It is no more a mandate after the amendment in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. Registry to process the matter for listing before the Hon'ble Court, as per rules.Signature Not Verified (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL)Digitally signed bySONALI SAUNDDate: 2016.07.20 Registrar16:55:13 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.31 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)..CC No(s). 11280/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01/12/2015 in ITA No. 905/2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 05/07/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Ms. Pinki Anand, ASG Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Application for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order is allowed. Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No.7019 of 2011. (Neetu Khajuria) Sr.P.A. (Asha Soni) Court Master

SECTION IIIA       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO...CC 11280 OF 2016 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing  S pecial Leave Petition) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ­ V   ....PETITIONER VERSUS M/S PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK  ....RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above­mentioned is filed against the final impugned judgment and Order dated 1 st  December, 2015  of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in ITA No. 905 of 2013 and is barred by time by 72 days. The counsel for the petitioner has filed application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that Civil Appeal No. 5044 of 2016 @ SLP (C) No. 14468 of 2016 @ SLP (C) No...CC 8731 of 2016 entitled “ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs M/S PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ”  arising out of common order which  was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 11 th  May, 2016, when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of order dated 11 th  May, 2016 is enclosed herewith for reference).  The matter alongwith application above­mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this Office Report. DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE ,   2016.        ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:­ Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ac3

ºITEM NO.31 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)..CC No(s). 11280/2016(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01/12/2015in ITA No. 905/2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date : 05/07/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANTFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Pinki Anand, ASGMr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RApplication for exemption from filingcertified copy of the impugned order is allowed. Delay condoned.Leave granted.Tag with Civil Appeal No.7019 of 2011.(Neetu Khajuria)Sr.P.A. (Asha Soni)Court Master

ITEM NO.23 COURT NO.7 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C)......CC NO(S). 7892/2016 (ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 14/01/2015 IN ITA NO. 84/2013 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 PETITIONER(S) VERSUS M/S CENTURY TEXTILES AND INDUSTRIES LTD RESPONDENT(S) [WITH APPLN.(S) FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND OFFICE REPORT] Date : 30/06/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni, ASG Ms. Anita Sahani, Adv. For Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material. Issue notice on application seeking condonation of delay as well as in the Special Leave Petition. Tag with Civil Appeal No.8376 of 2013. [VINOD LAKHINA] COURT MASTER [ASHA SONI] COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.86 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWAL Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 140/2016 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S FIRESTONE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. Respondent(s) (with office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 141/2016 Office Report) Date : 30/06/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Surajita Pattanaik, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Samir Malik, Adv. Mr. Chandra Prakash,Adv. Mr. Ajay Sharma,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Four weeks' time, as last opportunity, is granted to the sole respondent in both the matters for filing counter affidavit. Registry to process the matter for listing thereafter before the Hon'ble Court, irrespective of the fact whether counter affidavit is filed or not. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar

SECTION IIIA       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO...CC 7892 OF 2016 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing  S pecial Leave Petition) DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)­I              ....PETITIONER VERSUS M/S CENTURY TEXTILES & INDUSTRIES LTD.                       ....RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above­mentioned is filed against the final judgment and order dated  14 th  January, 2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in ITA No. 84 of 2013 and is barred by time by 351 days. The counsel for the petitioner has filed application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that Civil Appeal No. 8376 of 2013 @ SLP (C) No. 29835 of 2013 @ SLP (C) No...CC 15682 of 2013 entitled “THE C.I.T­10, MUMBAI vs M/S. GODREJ INDUSTRIES LTD ”  arising from similar issue which  was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 13 th  September, 2013, when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of order dated 13 th  September, 2013 is enclosed herewith for reference).  It is also submitted that counsel for the petitioner has filed additional documents  as per undertaking letter. Copy of the same has been included in the paper books. The matter alongwith application above­mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this Office Report. DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY ,   2016.        ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:­ Mr. Anil Katiyar, Advocate                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ac3

Listed on :  30..06..2016 Court No. :   R­1 Item No. :         86 SECTION III­A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NOS. 140 AND 141 OF 2016 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI           ....PETITIONER VERSUS M/S FIRESTONE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.       ....RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT  The matters above-mentioned were listed before the Ld. Registrar's C ourt on 3 rd March, 2016, when he was pleased to pass the following order:- “Four weeks time is granted to sole respondent to file counter affidavit in both the matters. List again on 30.06.2016.” It is submitted that counsel for the respondent has not filed counter affidavit in both the matters so far. The matters above-mentioned are placed before the Ld. Registrar's Court for Orders. DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:- Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate Mr. Chandra Prakash, Advocate Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ac3

NITEM NO.23 COURT NO.7 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C)......CC NO(S).7892/2016(ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 14/01/2015IN ITA NO. 84/2013 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 PETITIONER(S) VERSUSM/S CENTURY TEXTILES AND INDUSTRIES LTD RESPONDENT(S)[WITH APPLN.(S) FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND OFFICE REPORT]Date : 30/06/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANTFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni, ASGMs. Anita Sahani, Adv. For Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the followingO R D E RHeard the learned counsel for the petitioner andperused the relevant material.Issue notice on application seeking condonation ofdelay as well as in the Special Leave Petition. Tag with Civil Appeal No.8376 of 2013.[VINOD LAKHINA]COURT MASTER [ASHA SONI]COURT MASTER

8ITEM NO.86 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWALPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 140/2016COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S FIRESTONE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. Respondent(s)(with office report)WITHSLP(C) No. 141/2016Office Report) Date : 30/06/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms. Surajita Pattanaik, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Samir Malik, Adv. Mr. Chandra Prakash,Adv. Mr. Ajay Sharma,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RFour weeks' time, as last opportunity, is granted to thesole respondent in both the matters for filing counteraffidavit.Registry to process the matter for listing thereafterbefore the Hon'ble Court, irrespective of the fact whethercounter affidavit is filed or not. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar

ITEM NO.40 COURT NO.7 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)...CC No(s).9165/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18/11/2015 in ITA No. 2146/2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10, MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S. SBI GLOBAL FACTORS LTD. (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS M/S.GLOBAL TRADE FINANCE LTD.) Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 29/06/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No.9251 of 2015. (Neetu Khajuria) Sr.P.A. (Asha Soni) Court Master

SECTION IIIA       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO...CC 9165 OF 2016 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing  S pecial Leave Petition) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX­10, MUMBAI   ....PETITIONER VERSUS M/S SBI GLOBAL FACTORS LTD.           ....RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above­mentioned is filed against the judgment and final order dated 18 th  November, 2015 of the High Court of Bombay at Mumbai in ITA No. 2146 of 2013 and is barred by time by 36 days. The counsel for the petitioner has filed application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that  Civil Appeal No. 9251 of 2015 @ SLP (C) No. 31151 of 2015 @ SLP (C) No...CC 19575 of 2015 entitled “COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX­10, MUMBAI vs M/S. GODREJ AGROVET LTD ”  arising from similar issue  which  was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 2 nd  November, 2015 when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave (Copy of order dated 2 nd  November, 2015 is enclosed herewith for reference).  It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that SLP (C) Nos. 34428­29 of 2013 @ SLP (C) Nos...CC 18976­77 of 2013 entitled  “DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. vs M/S.GODREJ & BOYCE MFG.CO.LTD. ”  referred to on Page 'C' of list of dates arising from similar issue  which  was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 28 th  October, 2013, when the Hon'ble Court has dismissed the same. (Copy of order dated 28 th  October, 2013 is enclosed herewith for reference).  The matter alongwith application above­mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MAY ,   2016.        ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:­ Mr. Anil Katiyar, Advocate                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ac3

îITEM NO.40 COURT NO.7 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)...CC No(s).9165/2016(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18/11/2015in ITA No. 2146/2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10, MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S. SBI GLOBAL FACTORS LTD. (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS M/S.GLOBAL TRADE FINANCE LTD.) Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date : 29/06/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANTFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RDelay condoned.Leave granted.Tag with Civil Appeal No.9251 of 2015.(Neetu Khajuria)Sr.P.A. (Asha Soni)Court Master

ITEM NO.14 COURT NO.7 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C)......CC NO(S). 8731/2016 (ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 01/12/2015 IN ITA NO. 906/2015 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI PETITIONER(S) VERSUS M/S PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK RESPONDENT(S) (WITH APPLN. (S) FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND OFFICE REPORT) Date : 11/05/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Narasimha, ASG Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv. Mr. N.K. Kaushik, Adv. Mr. N.K. Karhail, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material. Delay condoned. Exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment is granted. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No.7019 of 2011. [VINOD LAKHINA] COURT MASTER [ASHA SONI] COURT MASTER

SECTION IIIA       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO...CC 8731 OF 2016 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing  S pecial Leave Petition) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI   ....PETITIONER VERSUS M/S PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK           ....RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above­mentioned is filed against the impugned Order dated 1 st  December, 2015 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in ITA No. 906 of 2015 and is barred by time by 37 days. The counsel for the petitioner has filed application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2011 @ SLP (C) No. 36515 of 2010 entitled  “ GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO.LTD. vs DY.COMMR.OF I.T MUMBAI & ORS.”  arising from similar issue  which  was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 12 th  August, 2011 when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of order dated 12 th  August, 2011 is enclosed herewith for reference).  The matter alongwith application above­mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this Office Report. DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MAY ,   2016.        ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:­ Mr. Anil Katiyar, Advocate                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ac3

¼ ITEM NO.14 COURT NO.7 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C)......CC NO(S). 8731/2016 (ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 01/12/2015 IN ITA NO. 906/2015 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI PETITIONER(S) VERSUS M/S PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK RESPONDENT(S) (WITH APPLN. (S) FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND OFFICE REPORT) Date : 11/05/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Narasimha, ASG Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv. Mr. N.K. Kaushik, Adv. Mr. N.K. Karhail, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material. Delay condoned. Exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment is granted. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No.7019 of 2011. [VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI]Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byVINOD LAKHINADate: 2016.05.11 COURT MASTER COURT MASTER17:04:21 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.7 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C)......CC NO(S). 5136/2016 (ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 23/09/2015 IN ITA NO. 1868/2013 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, MUMBAI PETITIONER(S) VERSUS M/S KOHINOOR PROJECTS PVT LTD RESPONDENT(S) (WITH APPLN. (S) FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND OFFICE REPORT) Date : 01/04/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, ASG Mr. Sanyat Lodha, Adv. Mrs. Liz Mathew, Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material. Delay condoned. Exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment is granted. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No.9183 of 2013. [VINOD LAKHINA] COURT MASTER [ASHA SONI] COURT MASTER

SECTION III­A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO...CC 5136 OF 2016 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition.) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ­6  ...PETITIONER VERSUS M/S KOHINOOR PROJECTS PVT. LTD.            ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above­mentioned is filed against the Final Order dated 23 rd  September, 2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in ITA No. 1868 of 2013 and is barred by time by 78 days. The Counsel for the petitioner has filed Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that Civil Appeal NO. 9183 of 2013 @ SLP (C) No. 32688 of 2013 @  S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 17659 of 2013 entitled “ C.I.T vs M/S KOHINOOR PROJ. PVT LTD ”  between same parties arising from similar issue which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 8 th  October, 2013 when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of the Order dated  8 th  October, 2013  is enclosed herewith for reference.) It is also submitted that Counsel for the petitioner has filed letter dated 14 th  March, 2016 stating therein that required relied upon judgment in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg Ltd. is reported in (2010) 328 ITR 81 and the same is under appeal before this Hon'ble Court in Civil Appeal No. 7019­20 of 2011. Hence its filing may be dispensed with. Copy of order dated 14 th  March, 2016 is annexed at Page No. 77 of the Paperbooks. The matter alongwith application above mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mr. B. V. Balram Das, Advocate           ASSISTANT REGISTRAR bs5

SECTION III­A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO...CC 5136 OF 2016 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition.) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ­6  ...PETITIONER VERSUS M/S KOHINOOR PROJECTS PVT. LTD.            ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above­mentioned is filed against the Final Order dated 23 rd  September, 2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in ITA No. 1868 of 2013 and is barred by time by 78 days. The Counsel for the petitioner has filed Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that Civil Appeal NO. 9183 of 2013 @ SLP (C) No. 32688 of 2013 @  S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 17659 of 2013 entitled “ C.I.T vs M/S KOHINOOR PROJ. PVT LTD ”  between same parties arising from similar issue which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 8 th  October, 2013 when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of the Order dated  8 th  October, 2013  is enclosed herewith for reference.) It is also submitted that Counsel for the petitioner has filed letter dated 14 th  March, 2016 stating therein that required relied upon judgment in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg Ltd. is reported in (2010) 328 ITR 81 and the same is under appeal before this Hon'ble Court in Civil Appeal No. 7019­20 of 2011. Hence its filing may be dispensed with. Copy of order dated 14 th  March, 2016 is annexed at Page No. 77 of the Paperbooks. The matter alongwith application above mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mr. B. V. Balram Das, Advocate           ASSISTANT REGISTRAR bs5

Listed on :­03.03.2016 Court :­  1 Item No. :­  93 SECTION IIIA        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NOS. 140 AND 141 OF 2016 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI   ....PETITIONER VERSUS M/S FIRESTONE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.           ....RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT T he matters above mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble  Court  on 5 th  January, 2016,  when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following Order:­ “ Delay condoned. Issue notice on Question No. (C) in the Special Leave Petitions. ” Accordingly, notice was issued to the sole respondent in both the matters. Mr. Chandra Prakash, Advocate and Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate has on 15 th  February, 2016 and 19 th  February, 2016 filed Vakalatnama and memo of appearance on behalf of sole respondent in SLP No. 140 and 141 of 2016 respectively but no counter affidavit has been filed in both the matters.  Service of notice is complete in both the matters. The matters above­mentioned are listed before the Ld. Registrar's Court for orders. DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH, 2016.        ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:­    Mr. Chandra Prakash, Advocate     Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate       ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ac3

ITEM NO.14 COURT NO.12 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No(s). 22512/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15/06/2015 in ITA No. 1354/2013 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S FIRESTONE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 22639/2015 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) Date : 05/01/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. P. S. Narasimha, ASG Mr. S. A. Haseeb, Adv. Mr. S. U. K. Sigh, Adv. for Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice on Question No. (c) in the Special Leave Petitions. (Jayant Kumar Arora) Sr. P.A. (Renu Diwan) Court Master

SECTION IIIA       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO...CC 22639 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing  S pecial Leave Petition) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX­II, THANE ....PETITIONER VERSUS M/S JAWARHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST                 ....RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above­mentioned is filed against the final judgment and order dated 8 th  June, 2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in ITA No. 1043 of 2013 and is barred by time by 95 days. The counsel for the petitioner has filed application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that the instant matter has been tagged with Special Leave Petition No...CC 22512 of 2015 entitled “ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs M/S FIRESTONE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.” as both are arising from similar issue. The matter alongwith application above­mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 21ST  DAY OF DECEMBER,   2015.            ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:­ Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate                    ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ac3

SECTION IIIA       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO....CC 22512 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing  S pecial Leave Petition) THE CIT­CENTRAL­III        ....PETITIONER VERSUS M/S FIRESTONE INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD             ....RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above­mentioned is filed against the Judgment and final order dated 15 th  June, 2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in ITA No. 1354 of 2013 and is barred by time by 88 days. The Counsel for the petitioner has filed Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2011 @ SLP(C) No. 36515 of 2010 entitled “GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO.LTD. vs DY.COMMR.OF I.T MUMBAI & ORS.” arising out of similar issue,  which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 12 th  August, 2011 when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of order dated 12 th  August, 2011, is enclosed herewith for reference). It is also submitted that Civil Appeal No. 10474 of 2014 @ SLP(C)No...CC 18245 of 2014 entitled “COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD” referred to Annexure P5 (at Page No. 332­333 of paperbooks) which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 19 th  November, 2014 when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of order dated 19 th  November, 2014, is enclosed herewith for reference). The matter above­mentioned alongwith application is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 21ST  DAY OF DECEMBER,   2015.      ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:­ Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR bs5

ì ITEM NO.14 COURT NO.12 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No(s). 22512/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15/06/2015 in ITA No. 1354/2013 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S FIRESTONE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 22639/2015 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) Date : 05/01/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. P. S. Narasimha, ASG Mr. S. A. Haseeb, Adv. Mr. S. U. K. Sigh, Adv. for Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice on Question No. (c) in the Special Leave Petitions. (Jayant Kumar Arora) (Renu Diwan)Signature Not Verified Sr. P.A. Court MasterDigitally signed byJayant Kumar AroraDate: 2016.01.0613:58:53 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.25 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)...... of 2015 CC No(s). 21550/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09/04/2015 in ITA No. 1139/2013 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Petitioner(s) VERSUS HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTIONS CO. LTD Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 11/12/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar,SG Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak,Adv. Mr. T.M. Singh,Adv. Mr. Ashish Jha,Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard. Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag along with C.A. No.8341 of 2013. (MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

SECTION IIIA       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO....CC 21550 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing  S pecial Leave Petition) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX­10           ....PETITIONER VERSUS HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION LTD.              ....RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above­mentioned is filed against the final Judgment and order dated 9 th  April, 2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in ITA No. 1139 of 2013 and is barred by time by 141 days. The Counsel for the petitioner has filed Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that Civil Appeal No. 8341 of 2013 @ SLP(C) No. 27583 of 2013 entitled “C.I.T vs M/S HINDUSTAN CONST. CO. LTD” arising out of similar issue  which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 16 th September, 2013 when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of order dated 16 th September, 2013, is enclosed herewith for reference).     It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that Civil Appeal No. 10474 of 2014 @ SLP NO. 31793 of 2014 @ SLP(C) No...CC 18245 of 2014 entitled “COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD.” arising out of similar issue  which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 19 th  November, 2014 when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of order dated 19 th   November, 2014, is enclosed herewith for reference).                      The matter above­mentioned alongwith application is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 4TH  DAY OF DECEMBER,   2015.      ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:­ Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR bs3

´ ITEM NO.25 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)...... of 2015 CC No(s). 21550/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09/04/2015 in ITA No. 1139/2013 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Petitioner(s) VERSUS HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTIONS CO. LTD Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 11/12/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar,SG Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak,Adv. Mr. T.M. Singh,Adv. Mr. Ashish Jha,Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard. Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag along with C.A. No.8341 of 2013. (MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTERSignature Not Verified COURT MASTERDigitally signed byMahabir SinghDate: 2015.12.1116:08:50 ISTReason:

. ITEM NO.25+61 COURT NO.14 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No(s). 19575/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09/03/2015 in ITA No. 524/2013 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10, MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S. GODREJ AGROVET LTD. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) With SLP(C) ...CC No. 19641/2015 (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 02/11/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Mr. T.M. Singh, Adv. Ms. N. Annapoorni, Adv. Ms. Purnima Bhat Kak, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. To be heard along with Civil Appeal No. 8376 of 2013. (Ashwani Thakur) (Renu Diwan ) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

SECTION III­A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO...CC 19575 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX­10, MUMBAI       ...PETITIONER VERSUS M/S GODREJ AGROVET LIMITED    ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above­mentioned is filed against the final Judgment and Order dated 9 th  March, 2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in ITA No. 524 of 2013 and is barred by time by 59 days. The Counsel for the Petitioner has filed Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition.  It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that Civil Appeal No. 8376 of 2013 @ SLP(C) No. 29835 of 2013 @ CC No. 15682 of 2013  entitled “THE C.I.T­10, MUMBAI vs M/S. GODREJ INDUSTRIES LTD” arising out of similar issue which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 13 th  September, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of the Order dated 13 th  September, 2015 is enclosed herewith for reference.). It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that SLP  No. 34428­29 of 2013 @ S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 18976­77 of 2013  entitled “DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. vs M/S.GODREJ & BOYCE MFG.CO.LTD.” arising out of similar issues which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 28 th  October, 2013, when the Hon'ble Court has dismissed the same. (Copy of the Order dated 28 th  October, 2013 is enclosed herewith for reference.). The matter alongwith application above­mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate        ASSISTANT REGISTRAR vks4

SECTION III­A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO...CC 19641 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX        ...PETITIONER VERSUS M/S BENNETT CLOEMAN & CO. LTD.    ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above­mentioned is filed against the final judgment and Order dated 7 th  May, 2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in ITA No. 1570 of 2013 and is barred by time by 72 days. The Counsel for the Petitioner has filed Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition.  It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the instant matter has been tagged with S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 19575 of 2015  entitled “ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX­10, MUMBAI vs M/S. GODREJ AGROVET LTD. ” as both are arising from similar issue.   The matter alongwith application above­mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 31TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate        ASSISTANT REGISTRAR vks4

ú . ITEM NO.25+61 COURT NO.14 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No(s). 19575/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09/03/2015 in ITA No. 524/2013 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10, MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S. GODREJ AGROVET LTD. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) With SLP(C) ...CC No. 19641/2015 (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 02/11/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Mr. T.M. Singh, Adv. Ms. N. Annapoorni, Adv. Ms. Purnima Bhat Kak, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. To be heard along with Civil Appeal No. 8376 of 2013. (Ashwani Thakur) (Renu Diwan)Signature Not Verified COURT MASTER COURT MASTERDigitally signed byASHWANI KUMARDate: 2015.11.0217:27:27 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).18398/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09/10/2014 in ITA No. 1238/2012 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S KALIMATI INVESTMENT CO. LTD. Respondent(s) (With office report) WITH SLP(C)No.20478/2015 - (With Office Report) Date : 24/09/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Maninder Singh,ASG Mr. N.K. Kaul,ASG Ms. Meenakshi Grover,Adv. Mr. T.M. Singh,Adv. Mr. Sumer Kacchawa,Adv. Ms. Shivani Luthra Lohiya,Adv. For Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajay Aggarwal,Adv. For Mr. Rajan Narain,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Ajay Aggarwal, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. Rajan Narain, learned Advocate-on-Record, waives notice for respondent in both the matters and seeks time to file vakalatnama. Vakalatnama may be filed within one week from today. To be listed along with Civil Appeal No.3359 of 2015. (Sarita Purohit) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Court Master Assistant Registrar

SECTION III­A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NOS. 18398 & 20478 OF 2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ­2       ...PETITIONER VERSUS M/S. KALIMATI INVESTMENT LTD.   ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT SLP(C) NO.     18398     OF 2015 The matter above mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 8 th  July, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following Order:­ “Delay condoned. Issue notice by Speed Post, returnable on 24 th September, 2015. Tag with Civil Appeal No.3359/2015.” Accordingly, notice was issued to the sole Respondent through speed post on 24 th August, 2015 and as per track report of India Post the same was delivered on 26 th  August, 2015 but no one has entered appearance so far.  SLP(C) NO. 20478 OF 2015 The matter above mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 20 th  July, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following Order:­ “Delay condoned. Issue notice by Speed Post. Tag with SLP(C) No.18398 of 2015.” Accordingly, notice was issued to the sole Respondent through speed post on 31 st  July, 2015 and as per track report of India Post the same was delivered on 3 rd  August, 2015 but no one has entered appearance so far.  The matters above­mentioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015.           ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate           ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).18398/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09/10/2014 in ITA No. 1238/2012 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S KALIMATI INVESTMENT CO. LTD. Respondent(s) (With office report) WITH SLP(C)No.20478/2015 - (With Office Report) Date : 24/09/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Maninder Singh,ASG Mr. N.K. Kaul,ASG Ms. Meenakshi Grover,Adv. Mr. T.M. Singh,Adv. Mr. Sumer Kacchawa,Adv. Ms. Shivani Luthra Lohiya,Adv. For Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajay Aggarwal,Adv. For Mr. Rajan Narain,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Ajay Aggarwal, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. Rajan Narain, learned Advocate-on-Record, waives notice for respondent in both the matters and seeks time to file vakalatnama. Vakalatnama may be filed within one week from today. To be listed along with Civil Appeal No.3359 ofSignature Not Verified 2015.Digitally signed bySarita PurohitDate: 2015.09.3013:20:03 ISTReason: (Sarita Purohit) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Court Master Assistant Registrar

ITEM NO.34 COURT NO.14 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 26423/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/06/2015 in ITA No. 1655/2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 Petitioner(s) VERSUS L AND T WELFARE COMPANY LTD. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and interim relief and office report) Date : 21/09/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Petitioner(s) Mrs. Pinky Anand, ASG Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv. Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. Ms. Saudamini, Adv. Ms. Shivani Luthra Lohiya, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal NO. 8596 of 2014. (Ashwani Thakur) (Renu Diwan ) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

SECTION III­A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO. 26423 OF 2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ­2       ...PETITIONER VERSUS M/S. L & T WELFARE COMPANY LTD.          ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above­mentioned is filed against the final impugned Judgment and Order dated 16 th  June, 2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in ITA No. 1655 of 2013. It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that Civil Appeal  No. 8596 of 2014 @SLP(C) No. 24628 of 2014 entitled “THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX­2 vs HDFC BANK LTD.” arising from same question of law which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 5 th  September, 2014, when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of the Order dated 5 th  September, 2014 is enclosed herewith for reference.) The matter above­mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF  SEPTEMBER, 2015.           ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate           ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

z ITEM NO.34 COURT NO.14 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 26423/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/06/2015 in ITA No. 1655/2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 Petitioner(s) VERSUS L AND T WELFARE COMPANY LTD. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and interim relief and office report) Date : 21/09/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Petitioner(s) Mrs. Pinky Anand, ASG Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv. Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. Ms. Saudamini, Adv. Ms. Shivani Luthra Lohiya, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal NO. 8596 of 2014. (Ashwani Thakur) (Renu Diwan) COURT MASTER COURT MASTERSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byASHWANI KUMARDate: 2015.09.2217:01:21 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No(s). 11762/2012 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13/12/2011 in ITA No. 937/2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S H.B. PORTFOLIA LTD. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 28/08/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Narasimha, ASG Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv. Mr. K. Parameshwar, Adv. Ms. N. Annapoorni, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted only with respect to Question No.1. Tag with Civil Appeal Nos.104-109 of 2015 (Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Ors. v. Commr. of I.T. New Delhi). (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (JASWINDER KAUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

à ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No(s). 11762/2012 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13/12/2011 in ITA No. 937/2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S H.B. PORTFOLIA LTD. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 28/08/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Narasimha, ASG Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv. Mr. K. Parameshwar, Adv. Ms. N. Annapoorni, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted only with respect to Question No.1. Tag with Civil Appeal Nos.104-109 of 2015 (Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Ors. v. Commr. of I.T. New Delhi).Signature Not Verified (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (JASWINDER KAUR)Digitally signed by COURT MASTER COURT MASTERSanjay KumarDate: 2015.08.2817:16:19 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.25 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).21824/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27/01/2015 in ITA No.178/2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S. CHURU TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. Respondent(s) (With interim relief and office report) Date : 14/08/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA For Petitioner(s) Mr. C. Mukund,Adv. Mr. Vivek Anandh,Adv. Ms. Anita Sahani,Adv. Mr. Pritish Kapoor,Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No.8376 of 2013. (Sarita Purohit) (Tapan Kumar Chakraborty) Court Master Court Master

SECTION III­A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO. 21824 OF 2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX­6 ...PETITIONER VERSUS M/S. CHURU TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above­mentioned is filed against the final Judgment and Order dated 27 th  January, 2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in ITA No. 178 of 2013.  Counsel for the petitioner has also filed application for condonation of delay in refiling the Special Leave Petition after curing the defects which is barred by time by 29 days and the same has been condoned by Additional Registrar IB. It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that Civil Appeal No. 8376 of 2013 @SLP(C) No. 29835 of 2013  entitled “THE C.I.T­10, MUMBAI vs M/S. GODREJ INDUSTRIES LTD” arising from similar issue/referred to on page F is pending which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 13 th  September, 2013 when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of the Order dated 13 th  September, 2013 is enclosed herewith for reference.)  It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that Civil Appeal No. 10474 of 2014 @SLP(C) No. 31793 of 2014  entitled “COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD.” referred to on page G, SLP(C) No. 9710 of 2012, CA No. 7173 of 2013 (@CC No. 15199 of 2013) and SLP(C) No. 18398 of 2015 also referred to on page G & H are also pending which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 19 th  November, 2014 when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of the Order dated 19 th  November, 2014 is enclosed herewith for reference.)  It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that Counsel for the petitioner has filed additional documents as per undertaking Letter.  Copy of the same has been included in the paper books. The matter above­mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015.           ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate           ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

ITEM NO.104 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. SURAJIT DEY Civil Appeal No(s). 5469/2013 C.I.T Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S CROMPTON CREAVES LTD. Respondent(s) (with office report) WITH C.A. No. 7974/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 8921/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 9833/2013 (With Office Report) Date : 13/08/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Nikhil Nayyar,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R C.A. No. 5469/2013 Service is complete. Statement of case has not been filed by either of the parties. C.A. No. 8921,7974 and 9833/2013 Service is complete in all the above appeals but no one has put in appearance.

Item No.104 -2- Appellant has not filed the statement of case. All the appeals are in complete category. Registry to process to list the same before the Hon'ble Court, as per rules. (SURAJIT DEY) Registrar

Listed on :­ 12.08.2015 Court :­ Item No. :­  SECTION III­A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5469, 7974, 8921 AND 9833 OF 2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX­6    ....APPELLANT VERSUS M/S CROMPTON GREAVES LTD.              ….RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT FOR PRE­FINAL HEARING The office report is prepared as per circular No. F. 41/ Jul./ 2008 dated 17 th December, 2008. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5469 OF 2013 A) There is sole respondent and is represented through counsel .  B) Service is complete. C) No application for substitution is pending. D) Both parties has not filed Statement of Case within stipulated time so far, in the matter as per Amended New Rule, 2013 vide order XIX, Rule 32(1)(2), it shall be presumed that the Counsel for respondent does not desire to lodge Statement of Case in the appeal. E) Not applicable. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8921 AND 7974 OF 2013 A) There is sole respondent and is  served through the High Court but no one has entered appearance so far.  B) Service is complete. C) No application for substitution is pending. D) Counsel for the Appellant has not filed Statement of Case within stipulated time so far, in the matter as per Amended New Rule, 2013 vide order XIX, Rule 32(1)(2), it shall be presumed that the Counsel for the Appellant does not desire to lodge Statement of Case in the appeal. E) Not applicable.

Ü ITEM NO.104 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. SURAJIT DEY Civil Appeal No(s). 5469/2013 C.I.T Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S CROMPTON CREAVES LTD. Respondent(s) (with office report) WITH C.A. No. 7974/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 8921/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 9833/2013 (With Office Report) Date : 13/08/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Nikhil Nayyar,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R C.A. No. 5469/2013 Service is complete. Statement of case has not been filed by either of the parties.Signature Not Verified C.A. No. 8921,7974 and 9833/2013Digitally signed byRupam DhamijaDate: 2015.08.2010:19:18 ISTReason: Service is complete in all the above appeals but no one has put in appearance.Item No.104 -2- Appellant has not filed the statement of case. All the appeals are in complete category.

Registry to process to list the same before the Hon'bleCourt, as per rules. (SURAJIT DEY) Registrar

ITEM NO.21 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 36560/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S HINDUJA VENTRUES LTD. Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 10986/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 19614/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21844/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21845/2013 (With Office Report) Date : 27/07/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms Gargi Khanna, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr Parikshit P Angadi, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv. M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar,Adv. Ms Neha Agarwal,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Ms Kudrat Dev, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) NO.36560/2012 Counter affidavit of the sole respondent has been filed.

-2- Item No.21 Matter stands complete. SLP(C) NOS. 10986, 19614, 21844, 21845 of 2013 Counter affidavit in SLP(C) NO.21844, 21845 of 2013 has not been filed despite last opportunity. In rest of the petitions, counter affidavit is already on record. Since the time stipulated for the respondents of the said two petitions stands expired, further opportunity is hereby declined. Matters stand complete. Registry to process all the matters for being listed before the Hon'ble Court as per rules. (RACHNA GUPTA) Registrar

Ü ITEM NO.21 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 36560/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S HINDUJA VENTRUES LTD. Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 10986/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 19614/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21844/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21845/2013 (With Office Report) Date : 27/07/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms Gargi Khanna, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr Parikshit P Angadi, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv. M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar,Adv. Ms Neha Agarwal,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Ms Kudrat Dev, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the followingSignature Not Verified O R D E RDigitally signed byHema JoshiDate: 2015.07.30 SLP(C) NO.36560/201210:25:13 ISTReason: Counter affidavit of the sole respondent has been filed. -2-Item No.21 Matter stands complete.

SLP(C) NOS. 10986, 19614, 21844, 21845 of 2013 Counter affidavit in SLP(C) NO.21844, 21845 of 2013 hasnot been filed despite last opportunity. In rest of the petitions, counter affidavit is alreadyon record. Since the time stipulated for the respondents ofthe said two petitions stands expired, further opportunityis hereby declined. Matters stand complete. Registry to process all thematters for being listed before the Hon'ble Court as perrules. (RACHNA GUPTA) Registrar

ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)No............./2015 (CC No(s).12809/2015) (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09/10/2014 in ITA No.1239/2012 passed by the High Court of Bombay) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S KALIMATI INVESTMENT CO. LTD. Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 20/07/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Petitioner(s) Ms. Meenakshi Arora,Sr.Adv. Mr. T.M. Singh,Adv. Mr. Nitesh Daryanani,Adv. For Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice by speed post. Tag with SLP(C)No.18398 of 2015. (Sarita Purohit) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Court Master Assistant Registrar

SECTION III­A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO...CC 12809 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2    ...PETITIONER VERSUS M/S KALIMATI INVESTMENT CO. LTD.  ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above­mentioned is filed against the final impugned Judgment and Order dated 9 th  October, 2014 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in ITA No. 1239 of 2012 and is barred by time by 166 days.  The Counsel for the Petitioner has filed Application for Condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition.  It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that Special Leave Petition No. 18398 of 2015 @CC No. 10265 of 2015 entitled “COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX­2 vs M/S KALIMATI INVESTMENT CO. LTD.” arising from common Order between the same parties is pending  which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 8 th  July, 2015 when the Hon'ble Court has directed to issue notice. (Copy of the Order dated 8 th  July, 2015 is enclosed herewith for reference.) The matter alongwith applications above­mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2015.           ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate  ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

\200 ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)No............./2015 (CC No(s).12809/2015) (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09/10/2014 in ITA No.1239/2012 passed by the High Court of Bombay) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S KALIMATI INVESTMENT CO. LTD. Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 20/07/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Petitioner(s) Ms. Meenakshi Arora,Sr.Adv. Mr. T.M. Singh,Adv. Mr. Nitesh Daryanani,Adv. For Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice by speed post. Tag with SLP(C)No.18398 of 2015. (Sarita Purohit) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Court Master Assistant RegistrarSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed bySarita PurohitDate: 2015.07.2211:56:17 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.13 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No(s). 12311/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21/01/2015 in ITA No. 280/2013 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S. ESSAR INVESTMENTS LTD. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 10/07/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. D.L. Chidananda, Adv. Mr. Niranjana Singh, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice. Tag with Civil Appeal No.7019 of 2011 @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.36515 of 2010 and other connected matters. (Ashok Raj Singh) (Suman Jain) Court Master Court Master

SECTION III­A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO...CC 12311 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX­5    ...PETITIONER VERSUS M/S. ESSAR INVESTMENTS LTD.   ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above­mentioned is filed against the impugned Judgment and final Order dated 21 st  January, 2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in ITA No. 280 of 2013 and is barred by time by 35 days.  The Counsel for the Petitioner has filed Application for Condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition.  It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2011 @SLP(C) No. 36515 of 2010 entitled “GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO.LTD. vs DY.COMMR.OF I.T MUMBAI & ORS.” arising from relied upon Judgment is pending  which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 12 th  August, 2011 when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of the Order dated 12 th  August, 2011 is enclosed herewith for reference.) The matter alongwith application above­mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2015.           ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate           ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

SECTION III­A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO...CC 12311 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX­5    ...PETITIONER VERSUS M/S. ESSAR INVESTMENTS LTD.   ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above­mentioned is filed against the impugned Judgment and final Order dated 21 st  January, 2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in ITA No. 280 of 2013 and is barred by time by 35 days.  The Counsel for the Petitioner has filed Application for Condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition.  It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2011 @SLP(C) No. 36515 of 2010 entitled “GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO.LTD. vs DY.COMMR.OF I.T MUMBAI & ORS.” arising from relied upon Judgment is pending  which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 12 th  August, 2011 when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of the Order dated 12 th  August, 2011 is enclosed herewith for reference.) The matter alongwith application above­mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2015.           ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate           ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

SECTION III­A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO...CC 12311 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX­5    ...PETITIONER VERSUS M/S. ESSAR INVESTMENTS LTD.   ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above­mentioned is filed against the impugned Judgment and final Order dated 21 st  January, 2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in ITA No. 280 of 2013 and is barred by time by 35 days.  The Counsel for the Petitioner has filed Application for Condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition.  It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2011 @SLP(C) No. 36515 of 2010 entitled “GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO.LTD. vs DY.COMMR.OF I.T MUMBAI & ORS.” arising from relied upon Judgment is pending  which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 12 th  August, 2011 when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of the Order dated 12 th  August, 2011 is enclosed herewith for reference.) The matter alongwith application above­mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2015.           ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate           ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

SECTION III­A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO...CC 12311 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX­5    ...PETITIONER VERSUS M/S. ESSAR INVESTMENTS LTD.   ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above­mentioned is filed against the impugned Judgment and final Order dated 21 st  January, 2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in ITA No. 280 of 2013 and is barred by time by 35 days.  The Counsel for the Petitioner has filed Application for Condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition.  It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2011 @SLP(C) No. 36515 of 2010 entitled “GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO.LTD. vs DY.COMMR.OF I.T MUMBAI & ORS.” arising from relied upon Judgment is pending  which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 12 th  August, 2011 when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of the Order dated 12 th  August, 2011 is enclosed herewith for reference.) The matter alongwith application above­mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2015.           ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate           ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

SECTION III­A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO...CC 12311 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX­5    ...PETITIONER VERSUS M/S. ESSAR INVESTMENTS LTD.   ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above­mentioned is filed against the impugned Judgment and final Order dated 21 st  January, 2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in ITA No. 280 of 2013 and is barred by time by 35 days.  The Counsel for the Petitioner has filed Application for Condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition.  It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2011 @SLP(C) No. 36515 of 2010 entitled “GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO.LTD. vs DY.COMMR.OF I.T MUMBAI & ORS.” arising from relied upon Judgment is pending  which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 12 th  August, 2011 when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of the Order dated 12 th  August, 2011 is enclosed herewith for reference.) The matter alongwith application above­mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2015.           ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate           ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

( ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.13 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No(s). 12311/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21/01/2015 in ITA No. 280/2013 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S. ESSAR INVESTMENTS LTD. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 10/07/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. D.L. Chidananda, Adv. Mr. Niranjana Singh, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice. Tag with Civil Appeal No.7019 of 2011 @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.36515 of 2010 and other connected matters.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by DeepakMansukhaniDate: 2015.07.14 17:20:52 ISTReason: Ashok Raj SIngh usedthe digital signer card of Mr.Deepak Mansukhani,Court Master (Ashok Raj Singh) (Suman Jain) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)No........../2015 (CC No(s).10265/2015) (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09/10/2014 in ITA No.1238/2012 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S KALIMATI INVESTMENT CO. LTD. Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 08/07/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Maninder Singh,ASG Mr. T.M. Singh,Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Grover,Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice by Speed Post, returnable on 24 th September, 2015. Tag with Civil Appeal No.3359/2015. (Sarita Purohit) (Rajinder Kaur) Court Master Court Master

SECTION IIIA       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPEALATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO... CC 10265 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX­2    ....PETITIONER VERSUS M/S KALIMATI INVESTMENT CO. LTD.              ....RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above-mentioned is filed against the final judgment and order dated 9th October, 2014 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in I.T.A. No. 1238 of 2012 and is barred by time by 133 days. The Counsel for the petitioner has filed application for condonation of delay filing in Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that the Civil Appeal No.3359 of 2015 @ Special Petition Leave No. 10798 OF 2015 entitled “ C.I.T.-VII,MAHARASHTRA vs M/S HERTZ CHEMICALS LTD” arising from common followed judgment is pending which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 6th April, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of the Order dated 6th April, 2015 is enclosed herewith for reference) . The matter alongwith application above-mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:- Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR lg3

æ ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)No........../2015 (CC No(s).10265/2015) (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09/10/2014 in ITA No.1238/2012 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S KALIMATI INVESTMENT CO. LTD. Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 08/07/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Maninder Singh,ASG Mr. T.M. Singh,Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Grover,Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice by Speed Post, returnable on 24th September, 2015. Tag with Civil Appeal No.3359/2015. (Sarita Purohit) (Rajinder Kaur) Court Master Court MasterSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed bySarita PurohitDate: 2015.07.0916:58:03 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.13 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 36560/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S HINDUJA VENTRUES LTD. Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 10986/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 19614/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21844/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21845/2013 (With Office Report) Date : 21/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr A.K.Kaul, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv. Mr Shikhar Srivastava, Adv. Mr Jeevan Ballav Panda, Adv. M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar,Adv. Ms Neha Agarwal,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) NO.36560/2012 Counter affidavit of the sole respondent is awaited. Be filed within four weeks as last opportunity.

-2- Item No.13 SLP(C) NOS. 10986, 19614, 21844, 21845 OF 2013 Counter affidavit in SLP(C) NO.19614, 10986 OF 2013 has already come on record. However, the same is awaited in SLP(C) NO.21844 and 21845 of 2013. Be filed within four weeks as last opportunity. List again on 27.7.2015. (RACHNA GUPTA) Registrar

ITEM NO.13 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 36560/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S HINDUJA VENTRUES LTD. Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 10986/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 19614/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21844/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21845/2013 (With Office Report) Date : 21/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr A.K.Kaul, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv. Mr Shikhar Srivastava, Adv. Mr Jeevan Ballav Panda, Adv. M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar,Adv. Ms Neha Agarwal,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the followingSignature Not Verified O R D E RDigitally signed byHema JoshiDate: 2015.04.23 SLP(C) NO.36560/201217:23:57 ISTReason: Counter affidavit of the sole respondent is awaited. Be filed within four weeks as last opportunity. -2-Item No.13SLP(C) NOS. 10986, 19614, 21844, 21845 OF 2013

Counter affidavit in SLP(C) NO.19614, 10986 OF 2013 hasalready come on record. However, the same is awaited inSLP(C) NO.21844 and 21845 of 2013. Be filed within four weeksas last opportunity. List again on 27.7.2015. (RACHNA GUPTA) Registrar

ITEM NO.19 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No(s). 4123/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13/08/2014 in ITA No. 661/2012 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 BOMBAY Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S ESSAR INVESTMENTS LTD Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and c/delay in refiling SLP and office report) Date : 17/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Narsimha, ASG Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Mukti Choudhry, Adv. Mr. a.N. Srivastava, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No.5101 of 2012. (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master

SECTION III­A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO...CC 4123 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 2 (Application for condonation of delay in Refiling Special Leave Petition) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX­5, MUMBAI ...PETITIONER VERSUS M/S. ESSAR INVESTMENTS LTD. ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above­mentioned is filed against the Judgment and Order dated 13 th  August, 2014 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in ITA No. 661 of 2012 and is barred by time by 30 days.  The Counsel for the petitioner has filed Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition.  Counsel for the petitioner has also filed application for condonation of delay in re­filing the Special Leave Petition after curing the defects which is barred by time by 45 days. It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that Special Leave Petition Nos. 14729­14731 of 2012 @CC Nos. 7138­7140 of 2012 entitled “ADDL.COMMR.OF I.T vs M/S.TULIP STAR HOTELS LTD.” referred to as Annexure P­4 which were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 30 th  April, 2012, when the Hon'ble Court has directed to issue notice. (Copy of the Order dated 30 th  April, 2012 is annexed as Annexure P­4 at page Nos. 189­191 of the paper books.) It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that Civil Appeal No. 5101 of 2012 @SLP(C) No. 20108 of 2012 entitled “C.I.T­5 MUMBAI vs M/S ESSAR INVESTMENTS LTD.” involving similar question of law is pending which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 9 th  July, 2012 when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of the Order dated 9 th  July, 2012 is enclosed herewith for reference.)

It is further submitted that Counsel for the petitioner has filed Additional documents as per her undertaking letter.  Copy of the same has been included in the paper books. The matter  alongwith applications above mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 31ST  DAY OF MARCH, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar , Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

ITEM NO.19 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No(s). 4123/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13/08/2014 in ITA No. 661/2012 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 BOMBAY Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S ESSAR INVESTMENTS LTD Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and c/delay in refiling SLP and office report) Date : 17/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Narsimha, ASG Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Mukti Choudhry, Adv. Mr. a.N. Srivastava, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No.5101 of 2012.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byGulshan Kumar AroraDate: 2015.04.1715:46:04 ISTReason: (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.23 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No(s). 5922/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12/09/2014 in ITA No. 816/2012 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S NATIONAL COMMODITY AND DERIVATIVES EXCHANGE LIMITED Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 06/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anita Sahni, Adv. For Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No. 8376 of 2013. (Jayant Kumar Arora) Sr. P.A. (Sneh Bala Mehra) Assistant Registrar

ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No(s). 15402/2013 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04/03/2013 in ITA No. 2168/2011 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) C.I.T.,MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S INSTANT HOLDINGS LTD Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 06/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL For Petitioner(s) Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerjee, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No. 7166 of 2013. (MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (TAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.17 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No(s). 19511/2013 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05/02/2013 in ITA No. 430/2012 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) C.I.T.-VII,MAHARASHTRA Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S HERTZ CHEMICALS LTD Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 06/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG Mr. S. A. Haseeb, Adv. Mr. Amarjeet Singh, Adv. For Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No. 8376 of 2013. (Jayant Kumar Arora) Sr. P.A. (Sneh Bala Mehra) Assistant Registrar

¾ ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No(s). 15402/2013 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04/03/2013 in ITA No. 2168/2011 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) C.I.T.,MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S INSTANT HOLDINGS LTD Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 06/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL For Petitioner(s) Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerjee, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No. 7166 of 2013. (MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (TAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY) COURT MASTER COURT MASTERSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byMeenakshi KohliDate: 2015.04.0706:35:28 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.17 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No(s). 19511/2013 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05/02/2013 in ITA No. 430/2012 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) C.I.T.-VII,MAHARASHTRA Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S HERTZ CHEMICALS LTD Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 06/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG Mr. S. A. Haseeb, Adv. Mr. Amarjeet Singh, Adv. For Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No. 8376 of 2013. (Jayant Kumar Arora) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Sr. P.A. Assistant RegistrarSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byJayant Kumar AroraDate: 2015.04.0913:13:13 ISTReason:

n ITEM NO.23 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No(s). 5922/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12/09/2014 in ITA No. 816/2012 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S NATIONAL COMMODITY AND DERIVATIVES EXCHANGE LIMITED Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 06/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anita Sahni, Adv. For Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No. 8376 of 2013. (Jayant Kumar Arora) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Sr. P.A. Assistant RegistrarSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byJayant Kumar AroraDate: 2015.04.0913:13:33 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.110 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Civil Appeal No(s). 7426/2012 COMM. OF INCOME TAX-II,DELHI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S LIQUID INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD. Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 26/02/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. S.S. Rawat, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv. M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Sole respondent has failed to enter appearance, despite service. The matter falls under the complete category. Registry to process for listing before the Hon'ble Court, as per rules. (RACHNA GUPTA) Registrar

\ ITEM NO.110 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Civil Appeal No(s). 7426/2012 COMM. OF INCOME TAX-II,DELHI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S LIQUID INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD. Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 26/02/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. S.S. Rawat, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv. M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Sole respondent has failed to enter appearance, despite service. The matter falls under the complete category. Registry to process for listing before the Hon'ble Court, as per rules. (RACHNA GUPTA)Signature Not Verified RegistrarDigitally signed byRupam DhamijaDate: 2015.02.2813:53:57 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.20 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 36560/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S HINDUJA VENTRUES LTD. Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 10986/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 19614/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21844/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21845/2013 (With Office Report) Date : 25/02/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr R.R.Rajesh, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr Lagnesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv. Ms Abhisaar Bairagi, Adv. Mr Shikhar Srivastava, Adv. M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar,Adv. Ms Neha Agarwal, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv.

-2- Item No.20 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) NO.36560/2012 Counter affidavit of the sole respondent is awaited. Be filed within four weeks. SLP(C) NO.10986, 19614 of 2013 Counter affidavit of the respondent has already been filed. SLP(C) NO.21844, 21845 of 2013 Counter affidavit is still awaited. Be filed within four weeks. List again on 16.4.2015. (RACHNA GUPTA) Registrar

ö ITEM NO.20 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 36560/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S HINDUJA VENTRUES LTD. Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 10986/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 19614/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21844/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21845/2013 (With Office Report) Date : 25/02/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr R.R.Rajesh, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr Lagnesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv. Ms Abhisaar Bairagi, Adv. Mr Shikhar Srivastava, Adv.Signature Not Verified M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Adv.Digitally signed byHema JoshiDate: 2015.02.28 Mr. Nikhil Nayyar,Adv.13:40:55 ISTReason: Ms Neha Agarwal, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. -2-Item No.20 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RSLP(C) NO.36560/2012 Counter affidavit of the sole respondent is awaited. Befiled within four weeks.

SLP(C) NO.10986, 19614 of 2013 Counter affidavit of the respondent has already beenfiled.SLP(C) NO.21844, 21845 of 2013 Counter affidavit is still awaited. Be filed within fourweeks. List again on 16.4.2015. (RACHNA GUPTA) Registrar

ITEM NO.19 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. SURAJIT DEY Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 36560/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S HINDUJA VENTRUES LTD. Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 10986/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 19614/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21844/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21845/2013 (With Office Report) Date : 19/01/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr Shikhar Srivastava, Adv. Ms Abhisaar Bairagi, Adv. M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) NO.36560/2012 With regard to the sole respondent, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner to take fresh steps within two weeks.

-2- Item No.19 SLP(C) NOS. 10986, 19614 of 2013 Counter affidavit on behalf of the sole respondent is already on record. SLP(C) NO.21844,21845/2013 The Ld. Counsel for the sole respondent is at liberty to file counter affidavit, if any, within four weeks. List again on 25.2.2015. (SURAJIT DEY) Registrar

2 ITEM NO.19 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. SURAJIT DEY Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 36560/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S HINDUJA VENTRUES LTD. Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 10986/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 19614/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21844/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21845/2013 (With Office Report) Date : 19/01/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr Shikhar Srivastava, Adv. Ms Abhisaar Bairagi, Adv. M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the followingSignature Not Verified O R D E RDigitally signed byHema JoshiDate: 2015.01.24 SLP(C) NO.36560/201211:11:14 ISTReason: With regard to the sole respondent, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner to take fresh steps within two weeks. -2-Item No.19SLP(C) NOS. 10986, 19614 of 2013

Counter affidavit on behalf of the sole respondent isalready on record.SLP(C) NO.21844,21845/2013 The Ld. Counsel for the sole respondent is at libertyto file counter affidavit, if any, within four weeks. List again on 25.2.2015. (SURAJIT DEY) Registrar

ITEM NO.34 COURT NO.7 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 21270/2012 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02/12/2011 in ITA No. 1048/2011 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At N. Delhi) COMM. OF INCOME NEW DELHI-IV Petitioner(s) VERSUS DCM SHRIRAM CONSOLIDATED LTD. Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) Date : 07/01/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar, SG Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Mr. D.L. Chidananda, Adv. Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Prem Prakash, Adv. Mr. Anshul Narayan, Adv. Mr. Naveen Kumar,Adv. Mr. Sudeep Dey, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (INDU BALA KAPUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

È ITEM NO.34 COURT NO.7 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 21270/2012 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02/12/2011 in ITA No. 1048/2011 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At N. Delhi) COMM. OF INCOME NEW DELHI-IV Petitioner(s) VERSUS DCM SHRIRAM CONSOLIDATED LTD. Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) Date : 07/01/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar, SG Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Mr. D.L. Chidananda, Adv. Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Prem Prakash, Adv. Mr. Anshul Narayan, Adv. Mr. Naveen Kumar,Adv. Mr. Sudeep Dey, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (INDU BALA KAPUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTERSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byDeepak MansukhaniDate: 2015.01.0717:14:07 ISTReason:

SECTION III­A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO...CC 20719 OF 2014 WITH INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL ­ IV   ...PETITIONER VERSUS M/S. DEEPAK FERTILIZERS AND PETROCHEMICALS  CORP. LTD. ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It  is submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that the matter above mentioned is filed against the final Judgment and Order dated 10 th  July, 2014 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in ITA No. 321 of 2012 and is barred by time by 51 days. The Counsel for the Petitioner has filed applcation for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that the Cvil Appeal No. 7019 of 2011 @SLP No. 36515 of 2010 entitled “ GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO.LTD. vs DY. COMMR.OF I.T MUMBAI & ORS. ” arising from similar issue is pending before the Hon'ble Court which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 12 th August, 2011 when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of the order dated 12 th August, 2011 is enclosed herewith for reference.) The matter alongwith application above mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate  ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

¢ ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)....../2014 (CC No(s). 20719/2014) (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10/07/2014 in ITA No. 321/2012 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL IV Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S DEEPAK FERTILIZERS AND PETROCHEMICALS CORP. LTDRespondent(s) (With appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 18/12/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Petitioner(s) Mr.N.K. Kaul,ASG Ms. Silpa Nair,Adv. Mr.Kapil Rustagi,Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice. Tag with C.A.No. 7019 of 2011 @ SLP(C)No. 36515 of 2010. (MADHU BALA) (ASHA SONI) COURT MASTER COURT MASTERSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byMadhu BalaDate: 2014.12.1817:02:04 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.38 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR DR. K.ARUL Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 10986/2013 CIT-CENTRAL-II, KOLKATA Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S. DHUNSERI PETR.& TEA INDUSTRIES LTD. Respondent(s) (with office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 19614/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21844/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21845/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 36560/2012 (with office report) Date : 21/11/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Akshay K. Ghai, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Karan Mehta, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Srivastava, Adv. M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar,Adv. Ms. Neha Agarwal, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) No. 36560/2012 Await service on the sole respondent. SLP(C) No.10986 and 19614/2013 Counter affidavit has already been filed. SLP(C) No. 21844 and 21845/2013 Counter affidavit has not been filed, despite earlier

Item No.38 -2- order. As requested, four weeks' time, as last opportunity, is granted to the respondents for filing counter affidavit. List again on 19.1.2015. (Dr. K. ARUL) Registrar

Ò ITEM NO.38 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR DR. K.ARUL Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 10986/2013 CIT-CENTRAL-II, KOLKATA Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S. DHUNSERI PETR.& TEA INDUSTRIES LTD. Respondent(s) (with office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 19614/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21844/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21845/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 36560/2012 (with office report) Date : 21/11/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Akshay K. Ghai, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Karan Mehta, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Srivastava, Adv. M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar,Adv. Ms. Neha Agarwal, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) No. 36560/2012 Await service on the sole respondent. SLP(C) No.10986 and 19614/2013Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byRupam DhamijaDate: 2014.11.24 Counter affidavit has already been filed.17:14:57 ISTReason: SLP(C) No. 21844 and 21845/2013 Counter affidavit has not been filed, despite earlierItem No.38 -2-order. As requested, four weeks' time, as last opportunity,is granted to the respondents for filing counter affidavit.

List again on 19.1.2015. (Dr. K. ARUL) Registrar

ITEM NO.38 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR PANKAJ BHANDARI Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 20275/2013 C.I.T -III Petitioner(s) VERSUS SUN INVESTMENTS P.LTD. Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 27/10/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Richa Pandey, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Despite Registrar's Court order dated 3.4.2014 and 24.7.2014, petitioner has not filed spare copies for issuance of notice. Let the matter be listed before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers. (PANKAJ BHANDARI) Registrar

\212 ITEM NO.38 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR PANKAJ BHANDARI Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 20275/2013 C.I.T -III Petitioner(s) VERSUS SUN INVESTMENTS P.LTD. Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 27/10/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Richa Pandey, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Despite Registrar's Court order dated 3.4.2014 and 24.7.2014, petitioner has not filed spare copies for issuance of notice. Let the matter be listed before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers. (PANKAJ BHANDARI) RegistrarSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byRupam DhamijaDate: 2014.10.2917:12:38 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.30 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR PANKAJ BHANDARI Civil Appeal No(s). 2165/2012 C.I.T., MUMBAI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS (P) LTD. Respondent(s) (with office report) WITH C.A. No. 5101/2012 (With C.A. No. 7394/2012 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 7395/2012 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 7426/2012 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 8195/2012 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 8507-8509/2012 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21294/2012 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 36560/2012 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 381/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 3267/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 5469/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 6191/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 6192/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 7168/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 7170/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 7171/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 7172/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 7173/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 7920/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 7974/2013 (With Office Report)

Item No.30 -2- C.A. No. 8341/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8342/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 8343/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 8909/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 8921/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 8933/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9183/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 9184/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 9832/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 9833/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 10096/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 10986/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 19614/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21844/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21845/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 4292/2014 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) C.A. No. 4308/2014 (With Office Report) Date : 12/09/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Ms. Prakriti Purnima, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Neha Agarwal, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Chawla,Adv. Mr. B. S. Banthia,Adv. Mr. Rajiv Tyagi,Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar,Adv. Mr. Rashmikumar Manilal Vithlani,Adv.

Item No.30 -3- Mr. Bimal Roy Jad,Adv. Mr. S. Gowthaman,Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv. Mr. Aditya G., Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, Adv. M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Adv. Mr. Ujjwal A. Rana, Adv. M/s Gagrat & Co.,Adv. Mr. Ranjit Raut, Adv. Ms. Bina Gupta, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R C.A. No.2165/2012 The matter is ready for listing before the Hon'ble Court. As and when the connected matters are ready, orders will be passed. C.A. No.8507-8509/2012 The matter is ready for listing, as no one has put in appearance on behalf of the sole respondent. As and when the connected matters are ready, orders will be passed. SLP(C) No. 21294/2012 The matter falls under the complete category as sole respondent has filed counter affidavit. As and when the connected matters are ready, orders will be passed. SLP(C) No.36560/2012 The learned counsel for the petitioner to take fresh steps for effecting service on the sole respondent. Office to issue notice.

Item No.30 -4- SLP(C) Nos.10986, 19614, 21844 and 21845/2013 Four weeks' time is granted to the learned counsel for the served respondents in all these matters for filing counter affidavit. List again on 21.11.2014. Remaining matters Deleted. (PANKAJ BHANDARI) Registrar

\220% ITEM NO.30 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR PANKAJ BHANDARI Civil Appeal No(s). 2165/2012 C.I.T., MUMBAI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS (P) LTD. Respondent(s) (with office report) WITH C.A. No. 5101/2012 (With C.A. No. 7394/2012 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 7395/2012 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 7426/2012 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 8195/2012 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 8507-8509/2012 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21294/2012 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 36560/2012 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 381/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 3267/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 5469/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 6191/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 6192/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 7168/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 7170/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 7171/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 7172/2013 (With Office Report)Signature Not Verified C.A. No. 7173/2013Digitally signed byRupam DhamijaDate: 2014.09.16 (With Office Report)16:02:20 ISTReason: C.A. No. 7920/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 7974/2013 (With Office Report)Item No.30 -2-C.A. No. 8341/2013

(With Interim Relief and Office Report)C.A. No. 8342/2013(With Office Report)C.A. No. 8343/2013(With Office Report)C.A. No. 8909/2013(With Office Report)C.A. No. 8921/2013(With Office Report)C.A. No. 8933/2013(With Office Report)SLP(C) No. 9183/2013(With Office Report)C.A. No. 9184/2013(With Office Report) C.A. No. 9832/2013(With Office Report) C.A. No. 9833/2013(With Office Report) C.A. No. 10096/2013(With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 10986/2013(With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 19614/2013(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21844/2013(With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21845/2013(With Office Report) C.A. No. 4292/2014(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) C.A. No. 4308/2014(With Office Report)Date : 12/09/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Ms. Prakriti Purnima, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Neha Agarwal, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Chawla,Adv. Mr. B. S. Banthia,Adv. Mr. Rajiv Tyagi,Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar,Adv. Mr. Rashmikumar Manilal Vithlani,Adv.Item No.30 -3- Mr. Bimal Roy Jad,Adv. Mr. S. Gowthaman,Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv. Mr. Aditya G., Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, Adv. M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Adv. Mr. Ujjwal A. Rana, Adv. M/s Gagrat & Co.,Adv. Mr. Ranjit Raut, Adv. Ms. Bina Gupta, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RC.A. No.2165/2012

The matter is ready for listing before the Hon'ble Court. As and when the connected matters are ready, orders willbe passed.C.A. No.8507-8509/2012 The matter is ready for listing, as no one has put inappearance on behalf of the sole respondent. As and when the connected matters are ready, orders willbe passed.SLP(C) No. 21294/2012 The matter falls under the complete category as solerespondent has filed counter affidavit. As and when the connected matters are ready, orders willbe passed.SLP(C) No.36560/2012 The learned counsel for the petitioner to take freshsteps for effecting service on the sole respondent. Office to issue notice.Item No.30 -4-SLP(C) Nos.10986, 19614, 21844 and 21845/2013 Four weeks' time is granted to the learned counsel forthe served respondents in all these matters for filing counteraffidavit. List again on 21.11.2014.Remaining matters Deleted. (PANKAJ BHANDARI) Registrar

SECTION III­A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL(C) NO. 20275 OF 2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ­ III ….PETITIONER VERSUS SUN INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. ….RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT The matters above mentioned was listed before the Ld. Registrar's Court on 3 rd April, 2014 when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following Order :- “Notice be reissued to the sole respondent through the concerned District Court besides ususal mode. List again on 24.7.2014” It is submitted that Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate has not filed process fee and spare copy for issuance of notice through District Judge as well as usual. Hence fresh Show cause notice could not be issued. The matter is listed before the Ld. Registrar's Court for orders. DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2014. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to :- Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR hm2

SECTION III­A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL(C) NO. 20275 OF 2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ­ III ….PETITIONER VERSUS SUN INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. ….RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT The matters above mentioned was listed before the Ld. Registrar's Court on 3 rd April, 2014 when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following Order :- “Notice be reissued to the sole respondent through the concerned District Court besides ususal mode. List again on 24.7.2014” It is submitted that Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate has not filed process fee and spare copy for issuance of notice through District Judge as well as usual. Hence fresh Show cause notice could not be issued. The matter is listed before the Ld. Registrar's Court for orders. DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2014. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to :- Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR hm2

è ITEM NO.45 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR PANKAJ BHANDARI Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 20275/2013 C.I.T -III Petitioner(s) VERSUS SUN INVESTMENTS P.LTD. Respondent(s) Date : 24/07/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Amit Upreti, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar ,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The learned counsel for the petitioner to file process fee and spare copies for effecting service on the sole respondent. On filing of the same, office to issue notice. List again on 27.10.2014. (PANKAJ BHANDARI) RegistrarSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byRupam DhamijaDate: 2014.07.2611:00:05 ISTReason:

,ITEM NO.48 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M.A. SAYEEDPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).21845/2013C.I.T MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S RELIANCE INFOCOM INFRA. LTD. Respondent(s)(With office report)Date: 09/05/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. D.S. Parmar, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Neha Agarwal, Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Six weeks' time is granted, as final chance, to thesole respondent for filing counter affidavit on record. List again on 28.8.2014. (M.A. SAYEED) REGISTRARrd

ITEM NO.99 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 5101 OF 2012 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M.A. SAYEEDC.I.T-5 MUMBAI Appellant (s) VERSUSM/S ESSAR INVESTMENTS LTD. Respondent(s)Date: 30/04/2014 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr. Ashok Singh, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Neha Agarwal, Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The matter falls under the completed category. It be processed for listing before the Hon'bleCourt, as per rules. (M.A. SAYEED) REGISTRARrd

ITEM NO.47 COURT NO.13 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 19511/2013(From the judgement and order dated 05/02/2013 in ITA No.430/2012,of The HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)C.I.T.-VII,MAHARASHTRA Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S HERTZ CHEMICALS LTD Respondent(s)(Office report on default)Date: 30/04/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN (In Chambers)For Petitioner(s) Mr. Khairati, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has instructions that additional documents are not to be filed. Case be listed on its turn. (Naveen Kumar) [Sneh Lata Sharma] Court Master Court Master

JITEM NO.54 COURT NO. 14 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 15402/2013(From the judgement and order dated 04/03/2013 in ITANo.2168/2011 of The HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)C.I.T.,MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S INSTANT HOLDINGS LTD Respondent(s)(OFFICE REPORT ON DEFAULT)Date: 29/04/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN (IN CHAMBERS)For Petitioner(s) Mr. C.P. Singh,Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,AORFor Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Counsel for the petitioner now prays that no additional documents are required to be filed. Submission is recorded. List the matter in due course. (Narendra Prasad) (Saroj Saini) Court Master Court Master

<ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2012 CC 11762/2012(From the judgement and order dated 13/12/2011 in ITA No.937/2010 ofThe HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S H.B. PORTFOLIA LTD. Respondent(s)(With office report on default)Date: 29/04/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA (IN CHAMBERS)For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pradeep Kumar Kaushik, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not intend to file any more document. Therefore, no further orders are necessary. [Nidhi Ahuja] [Suneet Mahajan] Court Master Court Master

dITEM NO.35 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M.A. SAYEEDPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).20275/2013C.I.T -III Petitioner(s) VERSUSSUN INVESTMENTS P.LTD. Respondent(s)(With office report)Date: 03/04/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.R. Anand, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Notice be reissued to the sole respondent throughthe concerned District Court besides usual mode. List again on 24.7.2014. (M.A. SAYEED) REGISTRARrd

ITEM NO.19 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)...... CC 12452/2013(From the judgement and order dated 21/01/2013 in ITA No.1517/2012, of TheHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)C.I.T. -6 Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S CROMPTON GREAVES LTD. Respondent(s) With I.A. 1 (c/delay in filing SLP and office report ))Date: 31/03/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPHFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Mohan Parasaran, Solicitor General Ms. Madhurima Tatia, Adv. Ms. N. Annapoorni, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Connect with Civil Appeal No. 3267 of 2013.|(Rajesh Dham) | |(Renu Diwan) ||Court Master | |Court Master |

êITEM NO.70 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 7394 OF 2012 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SANJIV JAINC.I.T.,NEW DELHI Appellant (s) VERSUSMOHAIR INVESTMENT & TRADING CO.P.LTD. Respondent(s)Date: 06/03/2014 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Ms. D. Geetha, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Sole respondent has been served but none has appeared nor any stepshave been taken on its behalf. Original record has been received. Appellant has already filed statement of case. No further steps are to be taken. The matter falls under the complete category. Registry to processthe matter for listing before the Hon'ble Court, as per rules.| | | (SANJIV JAIN) || | |REGISTRAR || | | |rd

 SECTION III-A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO. 24479 OF 2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-V ...PETITIONER VERSUS ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT The matter above mentioned was listed before the Court on 29th July, 2013, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order: “Delay Condoned. Notice.� Accordingly, Notice to the sole Respondent was issued through Registered Post. Mr. Pradeep K. Bakshi, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama and appearance on behalf of sole Respondent and Counter Affidavit and the same is circulate herewith. Service of notice is complete. The matter above-mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this Office report. DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2014. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate Mr. Pradeep K. Bakshi, Advocate rch ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

z ITEM NO.58 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).24479/2013 (From the judgement and order dated 17/07/2012 in ITA No.218/2010 of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI) C.I.T. DELHI-V Petitioner(s) VERSUS ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE Respondent(s) Date: 03/03/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Mr. T.M. Singh, Adv. Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Rajat Navet, Adv. Mr. Kushagra pandit, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Bakshi,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Tag with SLP(C) Nos. 14531-14536 of 2012. | [ Charanjeet Kaur ] | | [ Vinod Kulvi ] ||Court Master | |Asstt. Registrar |

*ITEM NO.47 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SANJIV JAINPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).21845/2013C.I.T MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S RELIANCE INFOCOM INFRA. LTD. Respondent(s)(With office report)Date: 28/02/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The learned Advocate, Ms. Neha Agarwal, on behalf of Mr. E.C.Agrawala, Advocate-on-Record appears and submits that she will file thevakalatnama on behalf of the sole respondent within two weeks. Time, asprayed for, is granted. After filing vakalatnama, counter affidavit befiled within four weeks. List again on 6.5.2014.| | | (SANJIV JAIN) || | |REGISTRAR || | | |rd

¶ITEM NO.20 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 18849/2013(From the judgement and order dated 21/03/2013 in ITA No.368/2013 of TheHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)CIT MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S THE INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD Respondent(s)With IA 1 ( c/delay in filing SLP and office report )WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 18883 of 2013With IA 1 ( c/delay in filing SLP and office report )Date: 28/10/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGHFor Petitioner(s) Mr. A.S. Chadhiok, ASG Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, Adv. Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv. for Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Connect with Civil Appeal No. 8376 of 2013.|(Pardeep Kumar) | |(Saroj Saini) ||Court Master | |Court Master |

ITEM NO.9 + 66 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 17659/2013(From the judgement and order dated 04/03/2013 in ITA No.2425/2011 of TheHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)C.I.T.-VI Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S KOHINOOR PROJECTS PVT LTD Respondent(s)With IA 1 ( c/delay in filing SLP,c/delay in refiling SLP and office report)WithSLP(C) ...CC No. 18402 of 2013[with appln. for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 08/10/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGHFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Gourab Banerji, ASG Mr. H.R. Rao, Adv. Mr. Gautam Jha, Adv. for Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Connect with Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2011.|(Pardeep Kumar) | |(Renu Diwan) ||Court Master | |Court Master |

âITEM NO.22 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 13777/2013(From the judgement and order dated 05/02/2013 in ITA No.917/2012 of TheHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX-7,MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S NATIONAL SECURITIES CLEARING CORP. Respondent(s)With IA 1 ( c/delay in filing SLP and office report )Date: 30/09/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGHFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. D.L. Chidananda, Adv. for Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Connect with Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2011.|(Pardeep Kumar) | |(Renu Diwan) ||Court Master | |Court Master |

ÌITEM NO.23 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 15887/2013(From the judgement and order dated 05/02/2013 in ITA No.837/2012, of TheHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)CIT MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S IL & FS TRANS. NETWORK LTD Respondent(s)With IA 1 ( c/delay in filing SLP and office report )Date: 30/09/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGHFor Petitioner(s) Mrs. N. Annapoorni, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Adv. for Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Connect with Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2011.|(Pardeep Kumar) | |(Renu Diwan) ||Court Master | |Court Master |

ITEM NO.28 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 16766/2013(From the judgement and order dated 01/03/2013 in ITA No.3/2013, of TheHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)CIT Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S MAHINDRA LIFESPACE DEV. LTD Respondent(s) With I.A. 1 (c/delay in filing SLP and office report ))Date: 27/09/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKURFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Gourab Banerji, A.S.G. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Mr. T.M. Singh, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Connect with Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2011.|(Rajesh Dham) | |(Renu Diwan) ||Court Master | |Court Master |

ÈITEM NO.30 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).27583/2013(From the judgement and order dated 18/03/2013 in ITA No.390/2013 of TheHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)C.I.T Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S HINDUSTAN CONST. CO. LTD Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 15976 of 2013With IA 1 (c/delay in filing SLP and with office report)S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 16045 of 2013With IA 1 (c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 16/09/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKURFor Petitioner(s) Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, Adv. Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv. for Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhay A. Jena, Adv. for Ms. Bina Gupta, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Connect with Civil Appeal No. 7166 of 2013.|(Pardeep Kumar) | |(Renu Diwan) ||Court Master | |Court Master |

ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 15563/2013(From the judgement and order dated 21/01/2013 in ITA No.1453/2012, of TheHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)C.I.T MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LTD Respondent(s) With I.A. 1 (c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 13/09/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKURFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Gourab Banerji, A.S.G. Mr. H.R. Rao, Adv. Mr. Gautam Jha, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Connect with Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2011.|(Rajesh Dham) | |(Indu Pokhriyal) ||Court Master | |Court Master |

\204ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.13 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil).........../2013 CC 15682/2013(From the judgement and order dated 11/01/2013 in ITA No.1203/2011 of The High Court of Bombay)THE C.I.T-10, MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S. GODREJ INDUSTRIES LTD Respondent(s)With I.A.1 (C/delay in filing SLP)Date: 13/09/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Gaurab Banerjee,ASG Mr. Gautam Jha, Adv. Ms. Tanushree Sinha,Adv. For Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv.(N.P.)For Respondent(s) Mr. Rajiv Tyagi,Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag this matter with SLP(C)No.36515/2010. |(Sarita Purohit) | |(Sneh Bala Mehra) ||Court Master | |Court Master |

¨ITEM NO.46 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2012 CC 11762/2012(From the judgement and order dated 13/12/2011 in ITA No.937/2010, of TheHIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S H.B. PORTFOLIA LTD. Respondent(s)(Office Report on Default)Date: 13/09/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI (IN CHAMBERS)For Petitioner(s) Mr. Om Prakash, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,AOR.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Additional documents, as per the undertaking of the counsel for the petitioner, have not been filed so far. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks further time, by way of last opportunity. Time, as prayed for, is granted.|(Sheetal Dhingra) | |(Renuka Sadana) ||AR-cum-PS | |Court Master |

4ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 15399/2013(From the judgement and order dated 18/02/2013 in ITA No.2460/2011, of TheHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6 Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S JAYNEER CAPITAL P LTD Respondent(s) With I.A. 1 (c/delay in filing SLP and office report ))Date: 09/09/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKURFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Gourab Banerji, A.S.G. Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Adv. Mr. Gautam Jha, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Connect with Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2011.|(Rajesh Dham) | |(Renu Diwan) ||Court Master | |Court Master |

ªITEM NO.21 +56 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 14381/2013(From the judgement and order dated 11/01/2013 in ITA No.1275/2012 of TheHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUSCROMPTON GREAVES LTD Respondent(s)With IA 1 (c/delay in filing SLP and office report )WITHS.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 14666 of 2013With IA 1 (c/delay in filing SLP and office report )S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 14711 of 2013With IA 1 (c/delay in filing SLP and office report )S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 15064 of 2013With IA 1 (c/delay in filing SLP and office report )S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 15069 of 2013With IA 1 (c/delay in filing SLP and office report )S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 15094 of 2013With IA 1 (c/delay in filing SLP and office report )SLP(C) NO. 25814 of 2013(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 15199 of 2013With IA 1 (c/delay in filing SLP and office report )Date: 23/08/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKURFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Mohan Parasaran, SG Ms. A. Subhashini, Adv. Ms. Aarthi Rajan,Adv for Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Ankur Saigal,Adv. for Mr. E.C. Agrawala, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Connect with Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2011.|(Pardeep Kumar) | |(Renu Diwan) ||Court Master | |Court Master |

&ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 12570/2013(From the judgement and order dated 21/01/2013 in ITA No.1663/2012 of TheHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)C.I.T Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S CEAT LTD. Respondent(s)With IA 1 ( c/delay in filing SLP and office report )Date: 08/08/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKURFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Mohan Parasaran, SG Ms. M. Tatia, Adv. Mr. D.L. Chidanand, Adv. for Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Adv. Mr. Alok Yadav, Adv. Mr. Amar Pratap Singh, Adv. for Mr. M.P.Devanath,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Mr. M.P. Devanath, advocate waives service for the respondent. Connect with Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2011 - Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of I.T., Mumbai and others.|(Pardeep Kumar) | |(Renu Diwan) ||Court Master | |Court Master |

.ITEM NO.22 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 12282/2013(From the judgement and order dated 21/01/2013 in ITA No.1501/2012, of TheHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 Petitioner(s) VERSUSCEAT LTD. Respondent(s)With IA 1 ( c/delay in filing SLP and office report )Date: 05/08/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKURFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Gourab Banerji, ASG Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, Adv. Ms. Madhurima Taria, Adv. for Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Adv. Mr. Alok Yadav, Adv. Mr. Amar Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. M.P.Devanath,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Mr. M.P. Devanath, advocate waives service for the respondent. Connect with Civil Appeal No.7019 of 2011 - Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of I.T., Mumbai and others.|(Pardeep Kumar) | |(Renu Diwan) ||Court Master | |Court Master |

ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CC 7416/2013Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013(From the judgement and order dated 17/07/2012 in ITA No.218/2010 of theHIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)C.I.T. DELHI-V Petitioner(s) VERSUSORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP,c/delay in refiling SLP)Date: 29/07/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBALFor Petitioner(s) Mr.Arijit Prasad, Adv. Mr.T.M.Singh, Adv. Ms.Gargi Khanna, Adv. for Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Notice. (G.V.Ramana) (Vinod Kulvi) Court Master Asstt.Registrar

²ITEM NO.28 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 13183/2013(From the judgement and order dated 21/01/2013 in ITA No.1446/2012, of TheHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S JINDAL SOUTH WEST HOLDING LTD. Respondent(s) With I.A. 1 (c/delay in filing SLP and office report ))WITHS.L.P.(Civil)....../2013 [CC 13287/2013] With I.A. 1 (c/delay in filing SLP and office report ))Date: 29/07/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKURFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Sahil Tagotra, Adv. Ms. M. Tatia, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Connect with Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2011. |(Rajesh Dham) | |(Renu Diwan) ||Court Master | |Court Master |

ITEM NO.13 + 57 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 12093/2013(From the judgement and order dated 11/01/2013 in ITA No.1276/2012 of TheHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)C.I.T Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S CROMPTON CREAVES LTD. Respondent(s)With IA 1 ( c/delay in filing SLP and office report )WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 12811 of 2013With IA 1 ( c/delay in filing SLP and office report )S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 12944 of 2013(With appln. for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 12/07/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Mr. W.S.A. Qadri, Adv. Mr. D.L. Chidanand, Adv. for Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Connect with Civil Appeal No.3267 of 2013 -C.I.T. New Delhi vs. Apollo Finance Ltd.|(Pardeep Kumar) | |(Renu Diwan) ||Court Master | |Court Master |

"ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.14 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2012 CC 10314/2012(From the judgement and order dated 02/12/2011 in ITA No.854/2011, of TheHIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)C.I.T -III Petitioner(s) VERSUSSUN INVESTMENTS P.LTD. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 01/07/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K SIKRIFor Petitioner(s) Mr. R.P. Bhatt, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shipra Ghose, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice. To be heard alongwith SLP (C) Nos. 14531-14536/2012. |(Rajni Mukhi) | |(Sneh Bala Mehra) ||SR. P.A. | |Court Master |

ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 7512/2013(From the judgement and order dated 17/08/2012 in ITA No. 344 of 2012 ofThe HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI)C.I.T.-VI Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE TRADING CROP. LTD. Respondent(s)With IA 1 (c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 12/04/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Gourab Banerji, ASG Mr. S.A. Haseeb, Adv. Ms. Reena Singh, Adv. for Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice. Connect with S.L.P. (C) No. 11278 of 2013 - C.I.T.-II vs. Jay Pee Ventures Pvt. Ltd.|(Pardeep Kumar) | |(Renu Diwan) ||Court Master | |Court Master |

dITEM NO.12 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 3330/2013(From the judgement and order dated 18/05/2012 in ITA No.346/2012 of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES PVT.LTD. Respondent(s) With I.A. 1 (c/delay in filing SLP and office report )Date: 08/04/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKURFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Mohan Parasaran, Solicitor General Mr. D.L. Chidananda, Adv. Ms. Madhurima Tatia, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Husnal Syali, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave limited to dis-allowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax, 1961. Connect with Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2011 titled "Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commr. Of I.T. Mumbai & Ors."|(Rajesh Dham) | |(Renu Diwan) ||Court Master | |Court Master |

ZITEM NO.1 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 4764/2013(From the judgement and order dated 29/08/2012 in ITA No.478/2012 of TheHIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)C.I.T.-II Petitioner(s) VERSUSJAY PEE VENTURES PVT. LTD. Respondent(s)With IA 1 ( c/delay in filing SLP and office report )WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 3997 of 2013With IA 1 (c/delay in filing SLP and c/delay in refiling SLP and withoffice report)Date: 06/03/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKURFor Petitioner(s) Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Adv. for Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice. Connect with S.L.P (C) Nos. 14531-14536 of 2012 - Maxopp Investment Ltd and others vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi.|(Pardeep Kumar) | |(Renu Diwan) ||Court Master | |Court Master |

ITEM NO.34 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 3341/2013(From the judgement and order dated 07/09/2012 in ITA No.548/2012 of TheHIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)C.I.T. Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S KAMA HOLDING LTD. Respondent(s)With IA 1 ( c/delay in filing SLP and office report )Date: 08/02/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Gourab Banerji, ASG Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, Adv. for Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Connect with Civil Appeal No.7019 of 2011 - Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of I.T., Mumbai and others.|(Pardeep Kumar) | |(Renu Diwan) ||Court Master | |Court Master |

ºITEM NO.20 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 3043/2013(From the judgement and order dated 18/11/2011 in ITA No.805/2009 of TheHIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)C.I.T.,NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUSEICHER LTD. Respondent(s)With IA 1 (c/delay in filing SLP and office report )Date: 04/02/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKURFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Gaurab Banerji, ASG Ms. Anita Sahni, Adv. Mr. S.A. Haseeb, Adv. for Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition. Connect with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 14531-14536 of 2012 - Maxopp Investment Ltd. and others vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi.|(Pardeep Kumar) | |(Renu Diwan) ||Court Master | |Court Master |

TITEM NO.21 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 21705/2012(From the judgment and order dated 28/03/2012 in ITA No.178/2012 of TheHIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)C.I.T-II Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S JALCO FINANCIAL SERVICES P.LTD. Respondent(s)WITH I.A. 1 (C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND C/DELAY IN REFILING SLP AND OFFICEREPORT)Date: 14/01/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKURFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Mohan Parasaran, ASG Ms. N. Annapoorni, Adv. Ms. Aarthi Rajan, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. The appeal will be heard on the SLP Paper Book. Additional documents, if any, may be filed by the parties. Tag with Civil Appeal No.7019 of 2011.|(VINOD LAKHINA) | |(KUSUM GULATI) ||COURT MASTER | |COURT MASTER |

bITEM NO.46 COURT NO.12 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).21269/2012COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTAINLESS INVESTMENTS LTD. Respondent(s)(OFFICE REPORT ON DEFAULT)WITHSLP(C) NO. 21933 OF 2012(OFFICE REPORT ON DEFAULT)Date: 14/01/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE (IN CHAMBERS)For Petitioner(s) Mr. Aditya Sharma,Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R On the oral request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, delay of 10 days in filing the process fee and spare copies is condoned.| (KUSUM SYAL) | |(S.S.R.KRISHNA) ||SR.P.A | |COURT MASTER || | | |

¦ITEM NO.34 COURT NO.14 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).21947/2012C.I.T-IV NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUSESCOTRAC FIN.& INVESTMENT P.LTD. Respondent(s)(OFFICE REPORT ON DEFAULT)Date: 09/01/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR (IN CHAMBERS)For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anil Antil, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R By way of last opportunity, two weeks' time is granted to the counsel for the petitioner to file process fee and spare copies.| (KUSUM SYAL) | |(S.S.R. KRISHNA) ||SR.P.A | |COURT MASTER || | | |

J ITEM NO. 28 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2012 CC 20861/2012 (From the judgement and order dated 18/11/2011 in ITA No.936/2009, of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI) C.I.T.,NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS EICHER LTD. Respondent(s) WITH I.A. 1 (C/Delay in filing SLP and office report) Date: 30/11/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukul Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. H.R. Rao, Adv. Ms. Rajni Ohri Lal, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Kavita Jha, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. The appeal will be heard on the SLP paper book. Additional documents, if any, may be filed by the parties. Tag with SLP(C) Nos. 14692-14694 of 2012. | [ Charanjeet Kaur ] | | [ Indu Bala Kapur ] ||Court Master | |Court Master |

¾ITEM NO.14 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2012 CC 17488/2012(From the judgment and order dated 04/08/2011 in ITA No.670/2011 of TheHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S HINDUJA VENTRUES LTD. Respondent(s)WITH I.A. 1 (C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND C/DELAY IN REFILING SLP)Date: 23/11/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKURFor Petitioner(s) Mr. R.P. Bhatt, Sr. Adv. Mr. N.K.K., Adv. Mr. Arjun Krishnan, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on application seeking condonation of delay as well as in the Special Leave Petition. Tag with Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.8507-8509 of 2012.|(VINOD LAKHINA) | |(KUSUM GULATI) ||COURT MASTER | |COURT MASTER |

ä ITEM NO.24 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2012 CC 19674/2012 (From the judgement and order dated 18/05/2012 in ITA No.349/2012, of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI) C.I.T. Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES PVT.LTD. Respondent(s) WITH I.A. 1 (C/Delay in filing SLP and office report) Date: 09/11/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Nizam Pasha, Adv. Ms. Arijeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. The appeal will be heard on the SLP paper book. Additional documents, if any, may be filed by the parties. Tag with C.A. No. 7019 of 2011. | [ Charanjeet Kaur ] | | [ Kusum Gulati ] ||Court Master | |Court Master |

ºITEM NO.33 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2012 CC 18415/2012(From the judgement and order dated 02/12/2011 in ITA No.277/2009, of TheHIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)C.I.T DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE Respondent(s) WITH I.A. 1 (C/Delay in filing SLP,c/delay in refiling SLP and office report)Date: 29/10/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKURFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Sr. Adv. Ms. A Subhashini, Adv. Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.-on-RecordFor Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. The appeal will be heard on the SLP paper book. Additional documents, if any, may be filed by the parties. Tag with SLP(C) No. 21938 of 2012. | [ Charanjeet Kaur ] | | [ Kusum Gulati ] ||Court Master | |Court Master |

ØITEM NO.21 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2012 CC 17385/2012(From the judgment and order dated 14/02/2012 in ITA No.84/2012 of TheHIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)COMM. OF INCOME TAX-II,DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S LIQUID INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD. Respondent(s)WITH I.A. 1 (C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND OFFICE REPORT)Date: 08/10/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKURFor Petitioner(s) Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG Mr. Aman Ahluwalia, Adv. Ms. Niranjana Singh, Adv. Mr. Arun Ahluwalia, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. The appeal will be heard on the SLP paper book. Additional documents, if any, may be filed by the parties. Tag with CA. No. 7019 of 2011. | [ Charanjeet Kaur ] | | [ Kusum Gulati ] ||Court Master | |Court Master |

| ITEM NO. 27 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2012 CC 17279/2012 (From the judgement and order dated 18/11/2011 in ITA No.263/2010, of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI) C.I.T.,NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS MOHAIR INVESTMENT & TRADING CO.P.LTD. Respondent(s) WITH I.A. 1 (C/Delay in filing SLP and office report) WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 17298 of 2012 WITH I.A. 1 (C/Delay in filing SLP and office report Date: 05/10/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mohan Parasaran, ASG Mr. D.L. Chidananda, Adv. Ms. A Subhashini, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.-on-Record Ms. Samta P Mishra, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Kavita Jha, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. The appeals will be heard on the SLP paper books. Additional documents, if any, may be filed by the parties. Tag with C.A. No. 7019 of 2011. | [ Charanjeet Kaur ] | | [ Kusum Gulati ] ||Court Master | |Court Master |

ÔITEM NO.4 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2012(CC 16593/2012)(From the judgement and order dated 18/11/2011 in ITA No.853/2009of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUSCHEMINVEST LTD. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 28/09/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIRFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Gaurab Banerji,ASG. Mr. N.K. Karhail,Adv. Mr. T.M. Singh,Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Kavita Jha,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as also on the special leave petition. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. Tag this petition with S.L.P. (C) Nos.14531-14536 of 2012. [ Alka Dudeja ] [ Indu Satija ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master

ÖITEM NO.12 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2012(CC 16041/2012)(From the judgement and order dated 18/11/2011 in ITA No.856/2009of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)C.I.T.,NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S CHEMINVEST LTD. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 21/09/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIKFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Gaurab Banerji,ASG. Mr. Arjun Krishnan,Adv. Ms. Ritu Bhardwaj,Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajay Vohra,Adv. Ms. Kavita Jha,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. Tag this petition with S.L.P. (C) Nos.14531-14536 of 2012. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Indu Satija ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master

ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2012(CC 12835/2012)(From the judgement and order dated 02/12/2011 in ITA No.460/2009of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)C.I.T Petitioner(s) VERSUSORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 06/08/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Gourab Banerji,ASG. Mr. Arijit Prasad,Adv. Mr. T.M. Singh,Adv Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as also on the special leave petition. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. Tag this petition with S.L.P. (C) Nos.14531-14536 of 2012. [ Alka Dudeja ] [ Indu Satija ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master

øITEM NO.6 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2012(CC 11786/2012)(From the judgement and order dated 02/12/2011 in ITA No.591/2010of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)C.I.T-IV NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUSESCOTRAC FIN.& INVESTMENT P.LTD. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 23/07/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. A.S. Chandiok,ASG. Mr. Abhinav Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar,Adv. Mr. Ritesh Kumar,Adv. Mr. Piyush Sanghi,Adv. Ms. Shweta Gupta,Adv. Mr. Sidharth Tyagi,Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. Tag this petiton with S.L.P. (C) Nos.14531-14536 of 2012. [ Alka Dudeja ] [ Indu Satija ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master

ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2012(CC 11426/2012)(From the judgement and order dated 02/12/2011 in ITA No.179/2010of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-IV Petitioner(s) VERSUSESCORTS FINANCE INVESTMENTS AND LEASING PVT.LTD. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)With S.L.P. (C) No........./2012 (CC 11427/2012)(With appln(s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal andoffice report)S.L.P. (C) No............./2012 (CC 10969/2012)(With appln(s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal andoffice report)S.L.P. (C) No............./2012 (CC 11328/2012)(With appln(s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal andoffice report)S.L.P. (C) No............/2012 (CC 11571/2012)(With appln(s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal andoffice report)Date: 20/07/2012 These Matters were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajiv Datta,Sr.Adv. Mr. D.L. Chidananda,Adv. Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajay Vohra,Adv.In SLP..../12 (CC Ms. Kavita Jha,Adv.10969/12 & 11328/12 ....2/- - 2 -In SLP.../12 (CC11427/12): Ms. Poonam Ahuja,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice.

Mr. Ajay Vohra and Ms. Poonam Ahuja, learned counsel,appears for the respondents. Tag these petitions with S.L.P. (C) Nos.14531-14536 of2012. [ Alka Dudeja ] [ Indu Satija ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master

èITEM NOS.11 & 52 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2012(CC 11091/2012)(From the judgement and order dated 02/12/2011 in ITA No.1063/2009of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTAINLESS INVESTMENTS LTD. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP)With S.L.P. (C) No......./2012 (CC 12041/2012)(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filng SLP and office report)Date: 16/07/2012 These Matters were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Mohan Parasaran,ASG. Mr. Arijit Prasad,Adv. Mr. H.R. Rao,Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. Tag these petitions with S.L.P. (C) Nos.14531-14536 of 2012. [ Alka Dudeja ] [ Indu Satija ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master

ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2012(CC 11203/2012)(From the judgement and order dated 07/12/2011 in ITA No.1313/2011of The HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)C.I.T-4 Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S WALLFORT FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 16/07/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajiv Dutta,Sr.Adv. Ms. Ritu Bhardwaj,Adv. Mr. F.A. Ayyubi,Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. Tag this petition with Civil Appeal No.7019 of 2011. [ Alka Dudeja ] [ Indu Satija ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master

*ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2012(CC 10585/2012)(From the judgement and order dated 12/01/2012 in ITA No.1459/2011of The HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)C.I.T-5 MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S ESSAR INVESTMENTS LTD. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP, exemption from filingc/c of the impugned order and office report)Date: 09/07/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Gaurab Banerji,ASG. Mr. D.L. Chidananda,Adv. Mr. Arjun Krishnan,Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Kavin Gulati,Adv. Ms. Neha Nagpal,Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal,Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala,Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Exemption allowed. Delay condoned. Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned counsel appears for the respondent. ....2/- - 2 - Leave granted. Tag this appeal with Civil Appeal No.7019of 2011. Parties to complete their pleadings withineight weeks. [ Alka Dudeja ] [ Indu Satija ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master

\214ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2012(CC 3888-3890/2012)(From the judgement and order dated 15/07/2011 in ITA No.129/2011,ITA No.1488/2011 and ITA No.1497/2011 of The HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)C.I.T MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUSMANOJ V WADHWA Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 02/03/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Gaurab Banerji,ASG. Mr. Arjun Krishnan,Adv. Ms. Ritu Bhardwaj,Ad. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as also on the special leave petition. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. No ad-interim stay. Tag these petitions with Civil Appeal No.7019 of 2011. [ Alka Dudeja ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar

¼ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2012(CC 2933/2012)(From the judgement and order dated 12/09/2011 in ITA No.947/2011of The HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)C.I.T., MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS (P) LTD. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 17/02/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. R.F. Nariman,SG. Mr. Farrukh Rasheed,Adv. Mr. Vikas Malhotra,Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Neeha Nagpal,Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal,Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala,Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag this appeal with Civil Appeal No.7019 of 2011. No stay. [ Alka Dudeja ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar