PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI 7 v. M/S PHI SEEDS LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

1 ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.9 SECTION XIV (For Judgment) 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). 2810/2012 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-05-2011 in ITA No. 237/2011 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) C.I.T NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAM KISHAN DASS Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 36495/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 6680/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 36496/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 7573/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 8761/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 9463/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 7660/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 9720/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 8512/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 10191/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 10190/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 12026/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 4599/2017 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 12027/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 10248/2017 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 10247/2017 (XIV) C.A. No. 5305/2017 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 11869/2012 (XIV)

2 C.A. No. 7076/2017 (XIV) C.A. No. 2951/2012 (XI-A) SLP(C) No. 16130/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 4334/2017 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 6082/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 2808/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 2811/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 27681/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 17500/2017 (XIV) Date : 26-03-2019 These matters were called on for pronouncement of Judgment today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Pinky Anand,ASG Mr. Arijit Prasad,Adv. Mr. Pranay Ranjan,Adv. Ms. Kirti Dua,Adv. Mr. T.M. Singh,Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. V. Giri,Sr.Adv. Mr. V. Balaji,Adv. Mr. C. Kannan,Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajay Vohra,Sr.Adv. Ms. Kavita Jha, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni,Adv. Mr. Udit Naresh,Adv. Rr-ex-parte, AOR Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. Ved Jain,Adv. Ms. Kislaya Parashar,Adv. Mr. Subodh S. Patil, AOR Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR

3 Hon’ble Dr. Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta. Leave granted in the special leave petitions. In terms of the signed reportable judgment, the civil appeals are allowed : “27 Accordingly, Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos 6082, 7573, 8761 and C.A. No. 2951 of 2012 are restored to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for decision on merits. Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos 2808, 2811, 36496, 6680, 36495, 11869, 12026, 12027, 10191, 10190, 9720, 8512, 2810, 7660, 9463, 16130, 27681 of 2012; Civil Appeal Nos 4599, 4334, 7076 of 2017; Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos 17500, 10248, 10247 of 2017 and C.A. No. 5305 of 2017 are restored to the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for decision on merits. ” Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (MAHABIR SINGH) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER (Signed Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 3211 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 2810 of 2012) The Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi …Appellant(s) VERSUS Ram Kishan Dass …Respondent(s) WITH Civil Appeal No(s). 3214, 3212, 3213, 3228, 3230, 3215, 3229, 3216, 3219, 3220, 3217, 3221, 3218, 3222, 3223, 3225, 3226, 3224, 3227 of 2019 @SLP (C) No. 6082, 2808, 2811, 27681, 36495, 6680, 36496, 7573, 8761, 9463, 7660, 9720, 8512, 10191, 10190, 12026, 12027, 11869, 16130 of 2012, Civil Appeal No 2951 of 2012, Civil Appeal Nos.4334, 4599, 5305 of 2017, Civil Appeal Nos. 3231, 3232, 3233 of 2019 @ SLP (C) Nos 10248, 10247, 17500 of 2017 and Civil Appeal No 7076 of 2017 J U D G M E N T Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. 1 Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions. 2 This batch of appeals involves the interpretation of a cluster of provisions of 1

the Income Tax Act 1961 1 , particularly Section 142(2C). A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court by its judgment dated 27 May 2011 dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the Revenue against an order dated 18 September 2009 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 2 . The Tribunal came to the conclusion that prior to the insertion of the expression “ suo motu” with effect from 1 April 2008 in Section 142(2C), the assessing officer had no jurisdiction to extend time for the submission of the report of an auditor appointed under sub section (2A), of his own accord. As a consequence, it was held that the assessment which was made under Section 153A, in respect of the assessment years in question, was barred by limitation. 3 In the present batch of cases, the submission of the assessees is that the assessing officer had no jurisdiction or authority under Section 142 (2C), as it stood prior to 1 April 2008, to extend time for the submission of the audit report of the auditor appointed under the provisions of sub section (2A). In essence, the submission is that the assessing officer was authorized to extend time (not exceeding 180 days) from the date on which a direction under sub section (2A) was received by the assessee, only on an application made by the assessee and for any good and sufficient reason. If the assessee made no application, the assessing officer would have no jurisdiction – according to the assessees – to extend time. 1

“IT Act 1961” 2

“Tribunal” 2

4 The Revenue adopted a contrary position, submitting that even before 1 April 2008, the jurisdiction of the assessing officer to extend time for the submission of the audit report was not confined to a situation in which the assessee had made an application for extension. Consequently, the incorporation of a provision for a suo motu exercise of power by the assessing officer, with effect from 1 April 2008 by the Finance Act, 2008 3 , was only intended to remove an ambiguity and was clarificatory in nature. 5 Section 142(2A) as it stood at the material time, provided as follows: “(2A) – If, at any stage of the proceedings before him, the Assessing Officer, having regard to the nature and complexity of the accounts of the assessee and the interests of the revenue, is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do, he may, with the previous approval of the Chief Commissioner of Commissioner, direct the assessee to get the accounts audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of s ection 288 , nominated by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner in this behalf and to furnish a report of such audit in the prescribed form - duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may prescribed and such other particulars as the Assessing Officer may require: Provided that the Assessing Officer shall not direct the assessee to get the accounts so audited unless the assessee has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” Sub section (2C) of Section 142 was in the following terms: “(2C) Every report under sub-section (2A) shall be furnished by the assessee to the Assessing Officer within such period as may be specified by the Assessing Officer: Provided that the Assessing Officer may, on an application made in this behalf by the assessee and for any good and sufficient reason, extend the said period by such further period or periods as he thinks fit; so, however, that the aggregate of the period originally fixed and the period or periods so extended shall not, in any case, exceed one hundred and eighty days from the date on which the direction under sub-section (2A) is received by the assessee.” 6 Consequent to the Finance Act, sub section (2C) was amended to read as 3

“Finance Act” 3

follows: “(2C) Every report under sub-section (2A) shall be furnished by the assessee to the Assessing Officer within such period as may be specified by the Assessing Officer: Provided that the – Assessing Officer may, suo motu, or on an application made in this behalf by the assessee and for any good and sufficient reason, extend the said period by such further period or periods as he thinks fit; so, however, that the aggregate of the period originally fixed and the period or periods so extended shall not, in any case, exceed one hundred and eighty days from the date on which the direction under sub-section (2A) is received by the assessee.” 7 Section 153B prescribes time limits for the completion of assessments under Section 153A. Explanation (ii), as it stood at the material time, provided that in computing the period of limitation for the purposes of the Section, “the period commencing from the day on which the Assessing Officer directs the assessee to get his accounts audited under sub-section (2A) of Section 142 and ending on the day on which the assesse is required to furnish a report of such audit under that sub-section” shall be excluded. While issuing a direction under sub section (2A) of Section 142, the assessing officer was vested with the authority to require the assessee to furnish a report of the audit in the prescribed form, signed and verified by the accountant, and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed and as may be required by him. The substantive part of sub section (2C) mandates that the report under sub section (2A) shall be furnished by the assessee to the assessing officer within the period that is specified by the assessing officer under the proviso, as it stood prior to its amendment by the Finance Act. The assessing officer was further empowered, on an application made by the assessee and for any good and sufficient reason, to extend the period further, subject to the stipulation that it shall 4

not exceed an aggregate of 180 days from the date on which the direction under sub section (2A) has been received by the assessee. 8 The crucial words which fall for interpretation are “On an application made in this behalf by the assessee and for any good and sufficient reason…” 9 Simply stated, the contention of the assessees is that the above words indicate that the assessing officer may extend the period, which has been specified under the substantive part of sub section (2C), only on an application made by the assessee and for good and sufficient reason. Contrariwise, according to the Revenue, the assessing officer, who issues a direction to the assessee under sub section (2A) to get his accounts audited, is vested with the authority to specify the period for the submission of the report, and within the overall limit of 180 days it is open to the assessing officer to extend the time which has been fixed in the first instance. The Revenue posits that the authority conferred upon the assessing officer to extend time, on an application made by the assessee, does not take away the authority of the assessing officer, who has prescribed the time for the submission of the report in the first instance, to extend time without an application for extension being made by the assessee, subject to the overall ceiling of 180 days. In the submission of the Revenue, the expression “ and for any good and sufficient reason” must be construed logically to mean “ or for any good and sufficient reason”. 10 The submission which has been urged on behalf of the assessees is sought to be buttressed by adverting to the legislative intent behind the insertion of the term “ suo motu” in the provisions of Section 142(2C) by the Finance Act. Circular No 5

1/2009 dated 27 March 2009 contains the following explanation for the amendments made to Section 142(2C): “ 27. Granting of power to the Assessing Officer to extend the time for completion of special audit under sub-section (2A) of section 142 27.1 Sub-sections (2A) to (2D) of section 142 deal with power of Assessing Officer to order a special audit. Such power is required to be exercised by the Assessing Officer having regard to the nature and complexity of the accounts of the assessee and the interest of the revenue. 27.2 Sub-section (2C) of the said section specifies the period within which the audit reports is to be furnished. The proviso to said sub-section empowers the Assessing Officer to extend this period of furnishing of audit report. Further, it is also provided that the aggregate of the originally fixed period and the period(s) so extended shall not exceed 180 days from the date of issuance of direction of special audit. Further, such extension can be made only when an application is made in this behalf by the assessee and there are good and sufficient reasons for such extension. 27.3 With a view to rationalise the said proviso so as to also allow the Assessing Officer to extend this period of furnishing of audit report suo motu, the said proviso has been amended. Hence, while the Assessing Officer shall continue to have power to grant extension on an application made in this behalf by the assessee and when there are good and sufficient reasons for such extension, he can also grant such extension on his own. 27.4 Applicability – This amendment has been made applicable with effect from 1-4-2008. Hence, from this date and onwards, the Assessing Officer shall also have power to extend the period of furnishing of audit report suo motu. ” 11 The Notes on clauses to the Finance Bill, 2008 contain the following explanation: “Clause 28 seeks to amend section 142 of the Income-tax Act, which relates to enquiry before assessment. Sub-sections (2A) to (2D) of the said section deal with power of Assessing Officer to order special audit, where the nature and complexity of the accounts requires such audit, to seek the assistance of a chartered accountant. Sub-section (2C) of the said section specifies the period within which the audit report is to be furnished. The Proviso to the said sub-section provides that the Assessing Officer may extend the 6

said period of furnishing of audit report, on an application made in this behalf, by the assessee and for any good and sufficient reason. It is proposed to amend the said proviso so as to provide that the Assessing Officer may, suo motu, or on an application made in this behalf by the assessee, and for any good and sufficient reason, extend the said period by such further period or periods as he thinks fit. This amendment will take effect from 1 st April, 2008.” The Memorandum accompanying the Finance Act similarly provides: “ Granting of power to the Assessing Officer to extend the time for completion of special audit under sub-section (2A) of section 142 Sub-sections (2A) to (2D) of section 142 deal with power of Assessing Officer to order a special audit. Such power is required to be exercised by the Assessing Officer having regard to the nature and complexity of the accounts of the assessee and the interest of the revenue. Sub-section (2C) of the said section specifies the period within which the audit report is to be furnished. The proviso to said sub- section empowers the Assessing Officer to extend this period of furnishing of audit report. Further, it is also provided that the aggregate of the originally fixed period and the period(s) so extended shall not exceed 180 days from the date of issuance of direction of special audit. Further, such extension can be made only when an application is made in this behalf by the assessee and there are good and sufficient reasons for such extension. It is proposed to amend the said proviso so as to also allow the Assessing Officer to extend this period of furnishing of audit report suo motu . Hence, while the Assessing Officer shall continue to have power to grant extension on an application made in this behalf by the assessee and when there are good and sufficient reasons for such extension, he can also grant such extension on his own. The amendment will take effect from 1 st April, 2008.” 12 In the context of the above background, it has been submitted that the purpose of the amendment was to “ also allow the assessing officer to extend the 7

period for furnishing of an audit report, suo motu”. The amendment to Section 142(2C) preserves the jurisdiction of the assessing officer to grant an extension on an application made by the assessee and for any good and sufficient reasons. In addition, the amendment allows the assessing officer to extend the period suo motu. The amendment having taken effect from 1 April 2008, it has been urged on behalf of the assessees that this power was not vested in the assessing officer prior to that date. Moreover, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee urged that: (i) The consequence of the exercise of the jurisdiction to extend time for submission of the audit report under the proviso to sub section (2C) is the extension of the period of limitation for the completion of an assessment under Explanation (ii) to Section 153B. This is indicative of the fact that the provision for extension is not procedural in nature; (ii) The consequence of the failure of the assessee to comply with the direction of submitting the audit report by the date prescribed by the assessing officer is that under Section 144(1)(b), the assessing officer is empowered to frame a best judgment assessment ; (iii) The expression in Explanation (ii) to Section 153B “ending on the date on which the assesse is required to furnish a report of such audit” signifies the end of the period of exclusion of time for the framing of an assessment under Section 153B; (iv) Section 142(2C) must consequently be interpreted in the context of the provisions of Sections 153B and 144; and (v) The expression ‘ and’ in the substantive part of Section 142(2A) has been held to be conjunctive by the decision of this Court in Sahara India (Firm), 8

Lucknow v Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I 4 . The expression ‘and’ in the proviso to sub-section 2C must be given the same meaning. 13 On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the Revenue that: (i) In construing the proviso to Section 142(2C), it is primarily the language of the statutory provision which must be construed; (ii) The amendment to sub section (2C) was necessitated by reason of the ambiguity in the provision as it stood prior to 1 April 2008; (iii) The legislature having stepped in to remove an ambiguity, the amendment brought about by the Finance Act must necessarily be regarded as clarificatory in nature; and (iv) The amendment is purely procedural and must be retrospective in character. 14 The rival submissions now fall for consideration. 15 Sub-section (2A) of Section 142 empowers the assessing officer to direct the assessee to get the accounts audited by an accountant, on the formation of an opinion that the conditions specified in the provision for recourse to the power are fulfilled. The power to order an audit is vested with the assessing officer. As a necessary incident of this power, sub-section (2C) imposes an obligation on the assessee to furnish the report to the assessing officer within the period which is specified by the assessing officer. The substantive part of sub-section (2C) places an obligation on the assessee to comply with the time schedule which is prescribed by the assessing officer. The overall ceiling of time appears in the proviso to sub- section (2C), which mandates that the aggregate of the time fixed and the extended period cannot exceed 180 days, after which there can be no further extension of 4

(2008) 14 SCC 151 9

time. 16 The submission of the assessee would have this Court interpret the proviso to mean that the assessing officer can extend the period which was originally fixed only on the request of the assessee. Besides leading to absurd consequences, such a construction of the proviso is patently contrary to its language, purpose and intendment. 17 The proviso was intended to deal with a situation where an assessee, for valid reasons, may not be able to furnish the audit report within the period that was fixed by the assessing officer. The enactment of the proviso was necessary to give a remedy to an assessee who, for genuine reasons, is unable to comply with the direction issued in the first instance by the assessing officer. Hence, the proviso stipulates that for good and sufficient reason, the assessing officer may extend time on an application submitted by the assessee. The “good and sufficient reason” requirement is intended to ensure that an extension of time cannot be demanded by the assessee as a matter of right. Indeed, the use of the expression ‘may’ indicates that whether or not time should be extended is discretionary. The discretion is intimated to the Assessing officer. 18 In determining whether the power to extend time vests in the assessing officer in a situation where the assessee has not made an application for extension, it is well to remember that under the substantive part of sub-section (2C), the assessing officer can fix time for the submission of the audit report. Subject to an overall limit of 180 days, the assessing officer is fully clothed with the authority to determine the 10

time within which the audit report should be submitted. For instance, the assessing officer may in a given case consider the grant of 90 days as adequate for the completion of the exercise. Though the assessing officer has the power, in the first instance, to fix an even longer period subject to the overall ceiling of time, she may fix a particular period within the limit. To then postulate that while the assessing officer could in the first instance have fixed a longer time limit but, having fixed a limit of time, is precluded from extending time thereafter would be an absurd course of interpretation. The assessing officer while fixing time in the first instance will do so on an estimate of the reasonable time which is likely to be taken in completing the exercise and submitting an audit report. The exigencies of the situation may however require an extension of time for genuine reasons or, as the statute calls it, “for any good and sufficient reason”. 19 There are two ways of looking at the situation. Firstly, the proviso to sub- section (2C) creates a remedy for an assessee to apply for extension where, for a good and sufficient reason, the audit report could not be submitted. Otherwise, the assessee may face a penalty under Section 271 apart from being subjected to a best judgment assessment under Section 144. By extending time at the behest of the assessee, the assessing officer allows the original order calling for an audit report to be duly implemented. The creation of a remedy under the proviso in favour of the assessee cannot be construed to detract from the authority which vests in the assessing officer, who has specified the time limit for the submission of an audit report in the first instance, to extend time without an application by the assessee. To hold otherwise, and to construe the proviso to sub-section (2C) as foreclosing the 11

authority of the assessing officer to extend time without a request by the assessee, would lead to an absurd consequence. The assessee would then be in control of whether or not to seek an extension of time, where the audit report has not been finalized. Even if the auditor, for genuine reasons (not bearing on the default of the assessee), was unable to comply with the time schedule, having regard to the nature or complexity of the accounts, the assessee would then have a sole and unrestricted power to determine whether an extension should be sought. Not seeking an extension would in effect defeat the underlying purpose and object of directing the assessee to obtain a report of an auditor under sub-section (2A). The legislature could not have intended this consequence. An interpretation which would defeat the purpose underlying sub-section (2A) must be avoided. The assessing officer who has fixed the time in the first instance must necessarily, as an incident of the authority to fix time, be entitled to extend time without an application by the assessee. While extending time, the assessing officer will be subject to the overall ceiling of time fixed under the proviso to sub section 2C. 20 Secondly, the alternate construction of the proviso is that the expression “ and for any good and sufficient reason” should be read to mean “ or for any good and sufficient reason”. As a matter of statutory interpretation, it is well settled that the expression “and” can in a given context be read as “or” (see in this context Ishwar Singh Bindra v State of UP 5 ). This submission was opposed on behalf of the assessees by urging that in the context of sub-section (2A), it has been held by this Court in Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow v CIT (supra) that the word “and” is used in 5

(1969) 1 SCR 219 = AIR 1968 SC 1450 12

the conjunctive sense. Undoubtedly the expression “and” in sub-section (2A) has been held to the conjunctive, while delineating the circumstances on the basis of which an opinion can be arrived at by the assessing officer. This would not necessarily furnish an index to how the expression “and” in the proviso to sub- section (2C) should be construed. The interpretation of the expression must be based on the context in which it is used. In the proviso to sub-section (2C), the expression “and” is used in connection with the grant of an extension of time and not in the context of the formation of an opinion for ordering a special audit. The power is of a procedural nature. 21 The learned counsel for the assessees sought to urge that the legislative history surrounding the amendment to the proviso to sub-section (2C) by the Finance Act would indicate that the amendment was intended to be prospective with effect from 1 April 2008 and, that prior to this date, the assessing officer had no jurisdiction to grant an extension of time, save on the application by the assessee. Circular 1/2009 dated 27 March 2009 indicates that the amendment was brought about “with a view to rationalize the said proviso”. Learned counsel argued that the expression in Circular 1/2009 that the amendment was to also allow the assessing officer to extend the period for furnishing of the audit report suo motu , indicates that such a power did not exist prior to the amendment. The submission cannot be accepted. The mere fact that the amendment has been made with effect from 1 April 2008 does not detract from it being clarificatory in nature or that it was designed to obviate an ambiguity. In Justice GP Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation 6 6

11 th Edition (2008) 13

the issue of whether a statutory provision is retrospective has been analysed thus: ““The presumption against retrospective operation is not applicable to declaratory statutes. As stated in Craies and approved by the Supreme Court: ‘For modern purposes a declaratory Act may be defined as an Act to remove doubts existing as to the common law, or the meaning or effect of any statute. Such Acts are usually held to be retrospective. The usual reason for passing a declaratory Act is to set aside what Parliament deems to have been a judicial error, whether in the statement of the common law or in the interpretation of statutes. Usually, if not invariably, such an Act contains a preamble, and also the word “declared” as well as the word “enacted”.’ But the use of the words ‘it is declared’ is not conclusive that the Act is declaratory for these words may, at times, be used to introduce new rules of law and the Act in the latter case will only be amending the law and will not necessarily be retrospective. In determining, therefore, the nature of the Act, regard must be had to the substance rather than to the form. If a new Act is ‘to explain’ an earlier Act, it would be without object unless construed retrospective. An explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the previous Act. It is well settled that if a statute is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law retrospective operation is generally intended. The language ‘shall be deemed always to have meant’ or ‘shall be deemed never to have included’ is declaratory, and is in plain terms retrospective. In the absence of clear words indicating that the amending Act is declaratory, it would not be so construed when the amended provision was clear and unambiguous. An amending Act may be purely clarificatory to clear a meaning of a provision of the principal Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory amendment of this nature will have retrospective effect ….” (emphasis supplied) The above extract was cited by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ahmedabad v Gold Coin Health Food Pvt Ltd 7 . A Constitution Bench of this Court also cited the above extract with approval in Commissioner of Income Tax (Central – I) v Vatika Township (P) Ltd. 8 . 22 The Notes on Clauses as well as the Memorandum to the Finance Act do not 7

2008 (9) SCC 622 8

[2014] 31 ITR 466 (SC); 2015 1 SCC 1 14

indicate a contrary hypothesis. The reason for the introduction of the amendment arose because of the element of ambiguity inherent in the erstwhile position as it stood before 1 April 2008. The ambiguity was precisely on the question as to whether the assessing officer was precluded from granting an extension of time of his own accord merely because the assessee was permitted to apply for an extension. Since the purpose of the amendment was to remove this ambiguity, we are clearly of the view that by the Finance Act, Parliament essentially clarified the position as it existed prior to the amendment. 23 Moreover, there exists a presumption of retrospective application in regard to amendments which are of a procedural nature. This position was stated in Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes 9 : “The general principle, however, seems to be that alterations in procedure are retrospective, unless there be some good reason against it.” In Commissioner of Income Tax (Central – I) v Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (supra), this Court held thus: “30. We would also like to point out, for the sake of completeness, that where a benefit is conferred by a legislation, the rule against a retrospective construction is different . If a legislation confers a benefit on some persons but without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person or on the public generally, and where to confer such benefit appears to have been the legislators' object, then the presumption would be that such a legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect. This exactly is the justification to treat procedural provisions as retrospective… 9

11 th Edition, Sweet and Maxwell (1962) at pg 217 15

31… Thus, the rule against retrospective operation is a fundamental rule of law that no statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act, or arises by necessary and distinct implication. Dogmatically framed, the rule is no more than a presumption, and thus could be displaced by outweighing factors.” (emphasis supplied) 24 We find no substance in the submission urged on behalf of the assessees that to adopt an interpretation which we have placed on the provisions of Section 142(2C) would enable the assessing officer to extend the period of limitation for making an assessment under Section 153B. Explanation (iii) to Section 153B(1), as it stood at the material time, provided for the exclusion of the period commencing from the date on which the assessing officer had directed the assessee to get his accounts audited under sub-section (2A) of Section 142 and ending on the day on which the assesee is required to furnish a report under that sub-section. The day on which the assessee is required to furnish a report of the audit under sub-section (2A) marks the culmination of the period of exclusion for the purpose of limitation. Where the assessing officer had extended the time, the period, commencing from the date on which the audit was ordered and ending with the date on which the assessee is required to furnish a report, would be excluded in computing the period of limitation for framing the assessment under Section 153B. The principle governing the exclusion of time remains the same. The act on which the exclusion culminates is the date which the assessing officer fixes originally, or on extension for submission of the report. 16

25 The issue as to whether the amendment which has been brought about by the legislature is intended to be clarificatory or to remove an ambiguity in the law must depend upon the context. The Court would have due regard to (i) the general scope and purview of the statute; (ii) the remedy sought to be applied; (iii) the former state of the law; and (iv) what power that the legislature contemplated (See Zile Singh v State of Haryana 10 ). The decision in Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. v Commissioner of Income Tax 11 on which learned counsel for the assesses relied involved a substitution of the Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961 with effect from 1 April 2000. A two Judge Bench of this Court held that given the legislative history of Section 9(1)(ii), it can only be assumed that it was deliberately introduced with effect from 1 April 2000 and was therefore intended to be prospective. This was also so construed by the CBDT, and in the explanatory notes to the provisions of the Finance Act, 1999. As we have indicated, interpretation is a matter of determining the path on the basis of statutory context and legislative history. In taking the view that we have, we have also taken note of the fact that the same view was adopted by several High Courts. Among them are (i) the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jagatjit Sugar Mills Co Ltd v Commissioner of Income Tax 12 ; (ii) the Kerala High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin v Popular Automobiles 13 ; and (iii) the Allahabad High Court in Ghaziabad 10

(2004) 8 SCC 1 11

[2005] 279 ITR 310 (SC); (2005) 12 SCC 717 12

(1994) 74 Taxman 8 (Pun.&Har.); [1994] 210 ITR 468 13

(2011) 333 ITR 308 17

Development Authority v Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad (UP) 14 . The decision of the Kerala High Court in Popular Automobiles (supra) is the subject matter of Civil Appeal No 2951 of 2012 in these proceedings. 26 For the reasons we have adduced, we have come to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 142(2C) of the Income Tax Act 1961, as they stood prior to the amendment which was enacted with effect from 1 April 2008 by the Finance Act, 2008 did not preclude the exercise of jurisdiction and authority by the assessing officer to extend time for the submission of the audit report directed under sub- section (2A), without an application by the assessee. We hold and declare that the amendment was intended to remove an ambiguity and is clarificatory in nature. As a consequence of our decision, we specifically overrule the judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v Bishan Swaroop Ram Kishan Agro Pvt. Ltd. 15 dated 27 May 2011. 27 Accordingly, Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos 6082, 7573, 8761 and C.A. No. 2951 of 2012 are restored to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for decision on merits. Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos 2808, 2811, 36496, 6680, 36495, 11869, 12026, 12027, 10191, 10190, 9720, 8512, 2810, 7660, 9463, 16130, 27681 of 2012; Civil Appeal Nos 4599, 4334, 7076 of 2017; Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos 17500, 10248, 10247 of 2017 and C.A. No. 5305 of 2017 are restored to the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for decision on merits. 14

(2011) 12 Taxman.com 334 (Allahabad); 2011 SCC On Line All 1151 15

[2011] 203 TAXMAN 326 (Delhi) – ITA No. 1775/2010 - 2011 SCC Online Del 2463 18

28 There shall be no order as to costs. ............................................................J [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud] ...........................................................J [Hemant Gupta] New Delhi; March 26, 2019 19

1 ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.11 SECTION XIV 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). 2810/2012 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-05-2011 in ITA No. 237/2011 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) C.I.T NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAM KISHAN DASS Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 36495/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 6680/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 36496/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 7573/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 8761/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 9463/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 7660/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 9720/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 8512/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 10191/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 10190/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 12026/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 4599/2017 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 12027/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 10248/2017 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 10247/2017 (XIV) C.A. No. 5305/2017 (XIV)

2 SLP(C) No. 11869/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 7076/2017 (XIV) C.A. No. 2951/2012 (XI-A) SLP(C) No. 16130/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 4334/2017 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 6082/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 2808/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 2811/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 27681/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 17500/2017 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 20222/2018 (XIV) Date : 12-03-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. (In Revenue Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Adv. matters) Mr. T.M. Singh, Adv. Mr. Pranay Ranjan, Adv. Ms. Kirti Dua, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR In CA No.2951/12 Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. (7.1) Mr. V. Balaji, Adv. Mr. M.S.M. Asaithanbi, Adv. Mr. Atul Sharma, Adv. Mr. C. Kannan, Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR For Respondent(s) In SLP(C)No. Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. 6082/12 etc. Ms. Kavita Jha, AOR (Item 7.2 to7.21) Mr. Vaibhav Kulkari, Adv. Mr. Udit Naresh, Adv.

3 Rr-ex-parte, AOR In C.A.No. Ms. Shashi Kapila, Adv. 4599/17 etc. Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR (Item 7.22 to7.27) Mr. Parvesh, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Kapila, Adv. Mr. Parvesh, Adv. Mr. Ved Jain, Adv. Ms. Kislaya Parashar, Adv. Mr. Subodh S. Patil, AOR In SLP(C)No. Mr. Salil Kapoor, Adv. 20222/18 Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. (Item No.7.28) Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) No. 20222/2018 D-tag the matter and list after three weeks. SLP(C) No. 2810/2012, SLP(C) No. 36495/2012, SLP(C) No. 6680/2012, SLP(C) No. 36496/2012, SLP(C) No. 7573/2012, SLP(C) No. 8761/2012, SLP(C) No. 9463/2012, SLP(C) No. 7660/2012, SLP(C) No. 9720/2012, SLP(C) No. 8512/2012, SLP(C) No. 10191/2012, SLP(C) No. 10190/2012, SLP(C) No. 12026/2012, C.A. No. 4599/2017, SLP(C) No. 12027/2012, SLP(C) No. 10248/2017, SLP(C) No. 10247/2017, C.A. No. 5305/2017, SLP(C) No. 11869/2012, C.A. No. 7076/2017, C.A. No. 2951/2012, SLP(C) No. 16130/2012, C.A. No. 4334/2017, SLP(C) No. 6082/2012, SLP(C) No. 2808/2012, SLP(C) No. 2811/2012, SLP(C) No. 27681/2012 & SLP(C) No. 17500/2017. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4 Arguments concluded. Judgment reserved. (ASHWANI THAKUR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER

ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.8 SECTION XIV 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). 2807/2012 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-05-2011 in ITA No. 1794/2010 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) C.I.T-VII NEW DELHI ETC ETC Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAM KISHAN DASS(DEAD)THROUGH L.RS ETC.ETC. Respondent(s) (and IA No.110762/2017-APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION and IA No.110764/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN. and IA No.110767/2017-XTRA and IA No.130973/2017-AMENDMENT IN CAUSE TITLE) WITH C.A. No. 2951/2012 (XI -A) (AT TOP) SLP(C) No. 6082/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 2808/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 2811/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 27681/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 2810/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 36495/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 6680/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 36496/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 7573/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 8761/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 9463/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 7660/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 9720/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 8512/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 10191/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 10190/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 12026/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 12027/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 11869/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 16130/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 9477/2014 (XIV) C.A. No. 4334/2017 (XIV) C.A. No. 4599/2017 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 10248/2017 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 10247/2017 (XIV) C.A. No. 5305/2017 (XIV) C.A. No. 7076/2017 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 17500/2017 (XIV)

-2- Date : 05-12-2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Y.P. Adhyaru, Sr.Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Mr. T.M. Singh,Adv. Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Pranay Ranjan,Adv. Mr. P.M. Singh,Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. V. Giri, Sr.Adv. Mr. V. Balaji, Adv. Mr. Atul Sharma, Adv. Mr. C. Kannan,Adv. Ms. Sripradha Krishnan, Adv. For Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv. Ms. Kavita Jha, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni,Adv. Mr. Udit Naresh,Adv. Rr-ex-parte, AOR Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Mr. Y.P. Adhyaru, Sr.Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Mr. T.M. Singh,Adv. Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Pranay Ranjan,Adv. Mr. P.M. Singh,Adv. For Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. Ved Jain,Adv. Mr. Pranjal Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Subodh S. Patil, AOR Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matters after one week. (KUSUM LATA SYAL) (CHANDER BALA) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT BRANCH OFFICER

ITEM NO.49 COURT NO.8 SECTION XIV 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). 2807/2012 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-05-2011 in ITA No. 1794/2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) C.I.T-VII NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAM KISHAN DASS(DEAD) Respondent(s) (and IA No.110762/2017-APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION and IA No.110764/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN. and IA No.110767/2017-XTRA) WITH C.A. Nos. 2951/2012, 4334/2017, 4599/2017, 5305/2017 and 7076/2017 SLP(C) Nos. 6082/2012, 2808/2012, 2811/2012, 27681/2012, 2810/2012, 36495/2012, 6680/2012, 36496/2012, 7573/2012, 8761/2012, 9463/2012, 7660/2012, 9720/2012, 8512/2012, 10191/2012, 10190/2012, 12026/2012, 12027/2012, 11869/2012, 16130/2012, 9477/2014, 10248/2017, 10247/2017 and 17500/2017 Date : 17-11-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Y.P.Adhyaru,Sr.Adv. Mr. A.K.Srivastava,Adv. Mr. N.K.Karhail,Adv. Mr. T.M.Singh,Adv. Mr. Pranay Ranjan,Adv. For Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. V.Giri,Sr.Adv. Mr. V.Balaji,Adv. Mr. MSM.Asaithambi,Adv. Mr. Atul Sharma,Adv. Mr. C.Kannan,Adv. Ms. Sripradha Krishnan,Adv. For Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR 1

For Respondent(s) Ms. Kavita Jha, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni,Adv. Rr-ex-parte Mr. Shashi M.Kapila,Adv. Mr. Pravesh Sharma,Adv. Mr. Siddharth Kapila,Adv. Mr. R.R.Maurya,Adv. Ms. Malvika Kalia,Adv. Mr. Sushil Kumar,Adv. Ms. Anusha Menon,Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Mr. Y.P.Adhyaru,Sr.Adv. Mr. A.K.Srivastava,Adv. Mr. N.K.Karhail,Adv. Mr. T.M.Singh,Adv. Mr. Pranay Ranjan,Adv. For Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. Ved Jain,Adv. Mr. Pranjal Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Subodh S. Patil, AOR Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Amended cause title be filed within a week. List these matters on a non-miscellaneous day in the last week of November, 2017. (ANITA MALHOTRA) (CHANDER BALA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER 2

ITEM NO.54 COURT NO.8 SECTION XIV 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). 2807/2012 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-05-2011 in ITA No. 1794/2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) C.I.T-VII NEW DELHI ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAM KISHAN DASS(DEAD) ETC. Respondent(s) (and IA No.110762/2017-APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION and IA No.110764/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN. and IA No.110767/2017-XTRA) WITH C.A.Nos.2951/2012, 4334/2017, 4599/2017, 5305/2017 and 7076/2017 SLP(C) Nos.6082/2012, 2808/2012, 2811/2012, 27681/2012, 2810/2012, 36495/2012, 6680/2012, 36496/2012, 7573/2012, 8761/2012, 9463/2012, 7660/2012, 9720/2012, 8512/2012, 10191/2012, 10190/2012, 12026/2012, 12027/2012, 11869/2012, 16130/2012, 9477/2014, 10248/2017, 10247/2017 and 17500/2017 Date : 06-11-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Yashank P.Adhyaru,Sr.Adv. Mr. Ashok K.Srivastava,Adv. Mr. N.K.Karhail,Adv. Mr. Pranay Ranjan,Adv. Mr. T.M.Singh,Adv. For Ms. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. V.Giri,Sr.Adv. Mr. V.Balaji,Adv. Mr. Atul Sharma,Adv. Mr. MSM Asaithambi,Adv. Mr. C.Kannan,Adv. Ms. Sripradha Krishnan,Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR 1

For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajay Vohra,Sr.Adv. Ms. Kavita Jha, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni,Adv. Mr. Udit Naresh,Adv. Rr-ex-parte Ms. Shashi M.Kapila,Adv. Mr. Pravesh Sharma,Adv. Mr. Siddharth Kapila,Adv. Mr. Sushil Kumar,Adv. Ms. Malvika Kalra,Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Mr. Yashank P.Adhyaru,Sr.Adv. Mr. Ashok K.Srivastava,Adv. Mr. N.K.Karhail,Adv. Mr. Pranay Ranjan,Adv. Mr. T.M.Singh,Adv. For Ms. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. Ved Jain,Adv. Mr. Pranjal Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Subodh S. Patil, AOR Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned in filing application for substitution. Abatement is set aside. Application for substitution is allowed. Cause title be amended within a week. List these matters after one week. (ANITA MALHOTRA) (CHANDER BALA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER 2

ITEM NO.56 COURT NO.8 SECTION XIV 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). 2807/2012 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-05-2011 in ITA No. 1794/2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) C.I.T-VII NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAM KISHAN DASS(DEAD) Respondent(s) WITH C.A.Nos.2951/2012, 4334/2017, 4599/2017, 5305/2017 and 7076/2017 SLP(C) Nos.6082/2012, 2808/2012, 2811/2012, 27681/2012, 2810/2012, 36495/2012, 6680/2012, 36496/2012, 7573/2012, 8761/2012, 9463/2012, 7660/2012, 9720/2012, 8512/2012, 10191/2012, 10190/2012, 12026/2012, 12027/2012, 11869/2012, 16130/2012, 9477/2014, 10248/2017, 10247/2017 and 17500/2017 Date : 27-10-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Yashank P.Adhyaru,Sr.Adv. Mr. Ashok K.Srivastava,Adv. Mr. T.M.Singh,Adv. For Ms. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. V.Giri,Sr.Adv. Mr. Vinod Mehta,Adv. Mr. Atul Sharma,Adv. Mr. C.Kannan,Adv. Ms. Sruipradha K.,Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Kavita Jha, AOR Mr. Udit Naresh,Adv. Rr-ex-parte 1

Ms. Shashi M.Kapila,Adv. Mr. Pravesh Sharma,Adv. Mr. Siddharth Kapila,Adv. Mr. Sushil Kumar,Adv. Mr. Prasant,Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Mr. Yashank P.Adhyaru,Sr.Adv. Mr. Ashok K.Srivastava,Adv. Mr. T.M.Singh,Adv. For Ms. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. Ved Jain,Adv. Mr. Pranjal Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Subodh S. Patil, AOR Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the application for substitution is ready and shall be filed within a week. List these matters after one week. (ANITA MALHOTRA) (CHANDER BALA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER 2

ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.7 SECTION XIV 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.2807/2012 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-05-2011 in ITA No. 1794/2010 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) C.I.T-VII NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAM KISHAN DASS(DEAD) Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 2951/2012 (XI -A) SLP(C) No. 6082/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 2808/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 2811/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 27681/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 2810/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 36495/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 6680/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 36496/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 7573/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 8761/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 9463/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 7660/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 9720/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 8512/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 10191/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 10190/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 12026/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 12027/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 11869/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 16130/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 9477/2014 (XIV) C.A. No. 4334/2017 (XIV) C.A. No. 4599/2017 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 10248/2017 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 10247/2017 (XIV) C.A. No. 5305/2017 (XIV) C.A. No. 7076/2017 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 17500/2017 (XIV) Date : 05-10-2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY

Counsel for the parties:- Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Balaji, Adv. Mr. Atul Sharma, Adv. Mr. C. Kannan, Adv. Ms. Sripradha K., Adv Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. Yashank P. Adhyaru, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava, Adv. Mr. T.M. Singh, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Kavita Jha, AOR Ms. Shivan Khandekar, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Udit Naresh, Adv. Ms. Shashi M. Kapila, Adv. Mr. Pravesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Kapila, Adv. Ms. Malvika Kapila, Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Mr. Ved Jain, Adv. Mr. Pranjal Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Subodh S. Patil, AOR Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants prays for and is granted three weeks' time to serve the legal representatives of the deceased sole respondent namely, Ram Kishan Dass, common respondent in SLP (C) Nos.2807/2012, 2808/12, 2811/12, 2810/12, 8512/12 and 16130/12. List these matters after three weeks. (ASHA SUNDRIYAL) (CHANDER BALA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

Item No.57 1 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV 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. SANJAY PARIHAR Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 2807/2012 C.I.T-VII NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAM KISHAN DASS(DEAD) Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 2951/2012 SLP(C) No. 36495/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 6680/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 36496/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 7573/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 8761/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 9463/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 7660/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 9720/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 8512/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 10191/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 10190/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 12026/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 4599/2017 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 12027/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 10248/2017 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 10247/2017 (XIV) C.A. No. 5305/2017 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 11869/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 7076/2017 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 16130/2012 (XIV) C.A. No. 4334/2017 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 9477/2014 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 6082/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 2808/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 2811/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 27681/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 2810/2012 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 17500/2017 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION) Date : 12-09-2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

Item No.57 2 For Petitioner(s) Mr. Tashriq Ahmad,Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. C. Kannan,Adv. Mr. Sripradha Krishnan,Adv. Mr. V. Balaji,Adv. Mr. R. Mohan,Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Shivani Khandekar,Adv. Ms. Kavita Jha, AOR Rr-ex-parte, AOR Mr. Pravesh Sharma,Adv. Mr. Siddharth Kapil,Adv. Mr.Sushil Kumar,Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Ms. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. Subodh S. Patil, AOR Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) Nos. 10247,10248 and 17500/2017 The office report is that the sole respondent has already filed the counter affidavit. Viewed thus, the matters shall be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court under the rules. SLP(C) No. 9477/2014 Ld.Counsel for the sole respondent has already stated that he does not intend to file the counter affidavit. Viewed thus, the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court under the rules.

Item No.57 3 SLP(C) Nos. 6082,7573,8761,7660,9463,9720,10190,10191,11869,12026, 12027, 27681, 36495 and 36416/2012 Ld. Counsel for the sole respondent has failed to file the counter affidavit within the period stipulated under the rules. Viewed, in that context, the matters shall be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court, under the rules. SLP(C) No. 6680/2012 Sole respondent is common respondent in SLP(C) No. 12026/2012 and is represented by Advocate. Hence, service is deemed as complete but no one has entered appearance on his behalf. Viewed thus, the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court under the rules. C.A. Nos. 4334,4599,5305 and 7076/2017 Learned counsel for the appellant shall within a period of four weeks file the affidavit of valuation. SLP(C) Nos. 2807,2808, 2810,2811 and 16130/2012 Sole respondent is reported to be dead . Ms. Kavita Jha, Ld. Counsel has filed vakalatnama for Lrs. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners shall within a period of four weeks file application for substitution to bring on record his Lrs. SLP(C) No. 8512/2012 Sole respondent is reported to be dead . Sole respondent is common respondent in SLP(C) No. 2807/2012, wherein vakalatnama for Lrs. filed by Ms. Kavita Jha, Ld. Counsel but she has not filed vakalatnama for Lr. in this matter.

Item No.57 4 Ld. Counsel for the petitioners shall within a period of four weeks file application for substitution to bring on record his Lrs. List again on 7.11.2017 . SANJAY PARIHAR Registrar MG

ITEM NO.20 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). 15245/2017 (ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 03-08-2016 IN ITA NO. 412/2016 03-08-2016 IN ITA NO. 411/2016 03-08-2016 IN ITA NO. 413/2016 03-08-2016 IN ITA NO. 414/2016 03-08-2016 IN ITA NO. 415/2016 03-08-2016 IN CMAP NO. 25522/2016 03-08-2016 IN CMAP NO. 25523/2016 03-08-2016 IN CMAP NO. 25524/2016 03-08-2016 IN CMAP NO. 25525/2016 03-08-2016 IN CMAP NO. 25528/2016 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI 7 Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S PHI SEEDS LIMITED Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION) 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. Ritesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Devashish Bharukha, Adv. Ms. Ardita Bishnoi, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice, returnable in six weeks. On the next date of hearing, C.A. NO. 2951 of 2012 as well as other similar cases shall also be listed for hearing. The Department shall provide the list of similar cases within two days. (ASHWANI KUMAR) MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.17 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 for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No.9566/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03/08/2016 in ITA No.413/2016 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S PHI SEEDS LIMITED Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 09/05/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Mr. Manish Pushkarna, Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, 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.2951 of 2012. (ASHA SUNDRIYAL) COURT MASTER (CHANDER BALA) COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.11 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. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9477/2014 CIT-XI Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S ZOHRA EMPORIUM Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 09/05/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nischal Kr. Neeraj,Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Piyush Kaushik,Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel appearing for sole respondent submits that the sole respondent does not wish to file the counter affidavit, but would be filing written statement before the Hon'ble Court and made a request to list the matter before the Hon'ble Court. Registry to process the matter for listing before the Hon'ble Court. (RAJESH KUMAR GOEL) Registrar

ITEM NO.11 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. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9477/2014 CIT-XI Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S ZOHRA EMPORIUM Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 09/05/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nischal Kr. Neeraj,Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Piyush Kaushik,Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel appearing for sole respondent submits that the sole respondent does not wish to file the counter affidavit, but would be filing written statement before the Hon'ble Court and made a request to list the matter before the Hon'ble Court. Registry to process the matter for listing before the Hon'ble Court. (RAJESH KUMAR GOEL) Registrar

DITEM NO.17 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 PROCEEDINGSPetition for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No.9566/2017(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03/08/2016in ITA No.413/2016 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S PHI SEEDS LIMITED Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date : 09/05/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPREFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASGMr. Manish Pushkarna, Adv.Mr. Rupesh Kumar, 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.2951 of 2012. (ASHAÂ SUNDRIYAL)COURTÂ MASTER (CHANDERÂ BALA)COURTÂ MASTER

ðITEM NO.11 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. RAJESH KUMAR GOELPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9477/2014CIT-XI Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S ZOHRA EMPORIUM Respondent(s)(with office report)Date : 09/05/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nischal Kr. Neeraj,Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Piyush Kaushik,Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RLearned counsel appearing for sole respondent submits that thesole respondent does not wish to file the counter affidavit, butwould be filing written statement before the Hon'ble Court and made arequest to list the matter before the Hon'ble Court.Registry to process the matter for listing before the Hon'bleCourt. (RAJESH KUMAR GOEL) Registrar

ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.10 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.7455/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03/08/2016 in ITA No. 414/2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S. PHI SEEDS LTD. Respondent(s) (With application(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 13/04/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, AG Mr. H. Raghavendra Rao, Adv. Mr. H. R. Rao, Adv. Ms. Ranjita Rohatgi, Adv. Mr. Manish Pushkarna, 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. Tag along with C.A. No.2951 of 2012.. (RASHI GUPTA) SR.P.A. (CHANDER BALA) COURT MASTER

Listed on :  13.4.2017 Court. No. : Item No.. :   SECTION IIIA       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO...C.C. 7455 OF 2017 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for Condonation of Delay in filing  S pecial Leave Petition) PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX­7        ....PETITIONER VERSUS M/S PHI SEEDS 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 3 rd  August, 2016 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in ITA. No. 414 of 2016 and is barred by time by 129 days. 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 SLP (C) No. 10247 of 2017 @ SLP...CC No.  6545 of 2017 entitled  PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-7 vs M/S PHI SEEDS LTD ” arising out of common order which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on  3 rd  April, 2017, when the Hon'ble Court has directed to issue notice. (Copy of the order dated 3 rd  April, 2017 is enclosed herewith for reference). It is also submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the C.A. No. 4599 of 2017@ SLP (C) No. 9671 of 2017 @ SLP...CC No. 5754 of 2017 entitled “PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI 7, NEW DELHI vs M/S PHI SEEDS LTD” arising out of common order which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on  27 th  March, 2017, when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of the order dated 27 th  March, 2017 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 APRIL,  2017.     ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:­ Mr. Anil Katiyar, Advocate.                  ASSISTANT REGISTRAR min3

ÄITEM NO.21 COURT NO.10 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.7455/2017(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03/08/2016in ITA No. 414/2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi)PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S. PHI SEEDS LTD. Respondent(s)(With application(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date : 13/04/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPREFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, AGMr. H. Raghavendra Rao, Adv.Mr. H. R. Rao, Adv.Ms. Ranjita Rohatgi, Adv.Mr. Manish Pushkarna, Adv.Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RDelay condoned.Leave granted.Tag along with C.A. No.2951 of 2012..(RASHI GUPTA)SR.P.A. (CHANDER BALA)COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.10 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. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9477/2014 CIT-XI Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S ZOHRA EMPORIUM Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 03/04/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr K.P.Singh, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Ld. Counsel, Mr Piyush Kaushik appearing on behalf of Mr Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocate-on-record appears for the sole respondent and submits that he will be filing vakalatnama within three days time. Counter affidavit be filed within four weeks thereafter. List again on 9.5.2017. (RAJESH KUMAR GOEL) Registrar

ITEM NO.23 COURT NO.10 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)....../2017 (CC No.6545/2017) (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03/08/2016 in ITA No. 410/2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-7 Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S PHI SEEDS LTD Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) With SLP(Civil)..CC No.6853/2017 (With appln. for c/delay in filing SLP) Date : 03/04/2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Arijit Prasad,Adv. Mr. Manish Pushkarna,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. Tag with Civil Appeal No.2951 of 2012. (Anita Malhotra) (Saroj Kumari Gaur) Court Master Court Master

Listing date. :­ 3.3.2017 Court. No. : R­1 Item No.. :   14 SECTION IIIA       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.  9477 OF 2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ­11             ....PETITIONER VERSUS M/S ZOHRA EMPORIUM  ....RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT The matter above mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 31 st  Mrach, 2014, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following Order:­ “Delay condoned. Issue notice. Tag with SLP(C)No.7660 of 2012 . ” Accordingly Show cause notice was issued to sole respondent on 22 nd  May, 2014 Neither AD Card nor unserved cover containing notice has been received back so far. Connected matters of SLP 2012(SLP NO. 2807/2012 main matter etc.) are complete matters Service of notice is not complete. The matter above­mentioned is listed before the Ld. Registrar's Court with this office report for order. DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2017.        ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:­ Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate.                      ASSISTANT REGISTRAR tm3

Listed on :  3.4.2017 Court. No. : 10 Item No.. :   23 SECTION IIIA       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO...C.C. 6545 OF 2017 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for Condonation of Delay in filing  S pecial Leave Petition) PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX        ....PETITIONER VERSUS M/S PHI SEEDS LIMITED               ....RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above­mentioned is filed against the Common impugned final Judgment and order dated 3 rd August, 2016 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in ITA No. 410 of 2016 and is barred by time by 129 days. 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 C.A. No. 4599 of 2017 @ SLP (C) No. 9671 of 2014 @ SLP...CC No. 5754 of 2017 entitled “PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI 7, NEW DELHI vs M/S PHI SEEDS LTD” arising out of common order which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on  27 th  March, 2017, when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of the order dated 27 th  March, 2017 is enclosed herewith for reference). It is also submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the C.A. No. 2951 of 2012 @ SLP NO. 11033 of 2011 entitled  “POPULAR AUTOMOBILES vs C.I.T.,COCHIN . ” referred to as  Annexure P­4 at Page no. 269­270 of Paper Books which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 19 th  March, 2012 when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of order dated 19 th   March, 2012 is enclosed herewith for reference) The matter alongwith Application above­mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this Office Report.   DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH,  2017.   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:­ Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate.                  ASSISTANT REGISTRAR min3

Sup . 3.4.2017    SECTION III­A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO...CC. 6853 OF 2017 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing  Special Leave Petition) PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI ­7   ...PETITIONER VERSUS M/S PHI SEEDS LIMITED  ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above­mentioned is filed against the common final Impugned Judgment and Order dated 3 rd August, 2016 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in ITA No.  411 of 2016 and is  barred by time by 129 days. The Counsel for the Petitioner has filed Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petitons.  It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the instant matter has been tagged with SLP. CC. NO. 6545 of 2017 entitled “PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI­7 vs M/S PHI SEEDS LTD.” as both are arising from common order.. The matter alongwith application above­mentioned is liste d before the Hon'ble Court with this Office Report.                 DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2017   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate       ASSISTANT REGISTRAR pb4

JITEM NO.23 COURT NO.10 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)....../2017(CC No.6545/2017)(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03/08/2016in ITA No. 410/2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi)PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-7 Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S PHI SEEDS LTD Respondent(s)(With appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)WithSLP(Civil)..CC No.6853/2017(With appln. for c/delay in filing SLP)Date : 03/04/2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPREFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Arijit Prasad,Adv.Mr. Manish Pushkarna,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.Tag with Civil Appeal No.2951 of 2012. (Anita Malhotra) (Saroj Kumari Gaur) Court Master Court Master

\214ITEM NO.10 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. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9477/2014CIT-XI Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S ZOHRA EMPORIUM Respondent(s)(with office report)Date : 03/04/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr K.P.Singh, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RLd. Counsel, Mr Piyush Kaushik appearing on behalf ofMr Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocate-on-record appears for thesole respondent and submits that he will be filing vakalatnamawithin three days time. Counter affidavit be filed within fourweeks thereafter.List again on 9.5.2017. (RAJESH KUMAR GOEL) Registrar

ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.10 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 for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No.5754/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03/08/2016 in ITA No.415/2016 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI 7, NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S PHI SEEDS 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 R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Patwalia, ASG Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Mr. Manish Pushkarna, 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. Issue notice. Tag with SLP (C) No.7660/2012 and Civil Appeal No.2951/2012. (ASHA SUNDRIYAL) COURT MASTER (CHANDER BALA) COURT MASTER

Listed on :   27­ 03­ 2017 Court. No. : 10 Item No.. :   11 SECTION IIIA       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO...C.C. 5754 OF 2017 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for Condonation of Delay in filing  S pecial Leave Petition) PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI­7 ....PETITIONER VERSUS M/S. PHI SEEDS 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 3 rd  August, 2016 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in ITA No. 415 of 2016 and is barred by time by 119 days. 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 SLP No. 7660 of 2012 @ SLP (C)..CC.NO. 3683 of 2012 entitled “C.I.T­1 NEW DELHI vs BISHAN SWAROOP RAM KISAHAN AGRO P.LTD” arising from relied upon order which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 27 th  February, 2012  when the Hon'ble Court has directed to issue notice. (Copy of order dated 27 th  February, 2012 is enclosed herewith for reference).  It is also submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the C.A. No. 2951 of 2012 @ SLP NO. 11033 of 2011 entitled  “ POPULAR AUTOMOBILES vs C.I.T.,COCHIN ” referred to as annexure P­4 at page No. 537­540 of the Paper Book which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 19 th  March, 2012 when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of order dated 19 th   March, 2012 is enclosed herewith for reference) The matter alongwith Application above­mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this Office Report.   DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017.   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:­ Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate.                 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR min3

\220ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.10 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 (C)......CC No.5754/2017(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03/08/2016in ITA No.415/2016 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI 7, NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S PHI SEEDS 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 R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Patwalia, ASGMr. Arijit Prasad, Adv.Mr. Manish Pushkarna, 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.Issue notice.Tag with SLP (C) No.7660/2012 and Civil Appeal No.2951/2012. (ASHAÂ SUNDRIYAL)COURTÂ MASTER (CHANDERÂ BALA)COURTÂ MASTER

ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.10 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 for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No.23860/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13/05/2016 in ITA No.312/2016 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6 Petitioner(s) VERSUS NILKANTH CONCAST PVT. LTD. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 10/03/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE For Petitioner(s) Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. Mr. Manish Pushkarna, Adv. Mr. Parthiv Goswami, Adv. Ms. Poornima Bhat, Adv. Mr. Hemant Arya, 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.2951 of 2012 and connected matters. (ASHA SUNDRIYAL) COURT MASTER (CHANDER BALA) COURT MASTER

SECTION IIIA       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO...C.C. 23860 OF 2016 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for Condonation of Delay in filing  S pecial Leave Petition) PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX­6       ....PETITIONER VERSUS NILKANT CONCAST 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 impugned Judgment and final order dated 13 th  May, 2016 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in ITA  No. 312 of 2016 and is barred by time by 82 days. 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 SLP (C) No. 7660 of 2012 @ SLP (C) CC...NO. 3683 of 2012 entitled  “C.I.T­1 NEW DELHI vs BISHAN SWAROOP RAM KISAHAN AGRO P.LTD . ” referred to on Page 'C' of list of date which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on  27 th  February, 2012, when the Hon'ble Court has directed to issue notice. (Copy of order dated 27 th  February, 2012 is enclosed herewith for reference).  It is also submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the C.A. No. 2951 of 2012 @ SLP NO. 11033 of 2011 entitled  “POPULAR AUTOMOBILES vs C.I.T.,COCHIN . ” referred to as annexure P­3 which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 19 th  March, 2012 when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of order dated 19 th   March, 2012 is enclosed herewith for reference) It is lastly submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that Counsel for the Petitioner has filed Additional document 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 7TH DAY OF MARCH,  2017.   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:­ Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate. Mr. Subodh S. Patil, Advocate     ASSISTANT REGISTRAR min3

ÊITEM NO.8 COURT NO.10 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 (C)......CC No.23860/2016(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13/05/2016in ITA No.312/2016 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6 Petitioner(s) VERSUSNILKANTH CONCAST PVT. LTD. Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date : 10/03/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPREFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Pinky Anand, ASGMrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv.Mr. Manish Pushkarna, Adv.Mr. Parthiv Goswami, Adv.Ms. Poornima Bhat, Adv.Mr. Hemant Arya, 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.2951 of 2012 and connected matters. (ASHAÂ SUNDRIYAL)COURTÂ MASTER (CHANDERÂ BALA)COURTÂ MASTER

ITEM NO.14 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.9477/2014 CIT-XI Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S ZOHRA EMPORIUM Respondent(s) (With office report) Date : 03/03/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv. Mr. Satyavrat Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Fresh steps for service on sole respondent be taken within two weeks' from today and notice thereafter. List again on 03 rd April, 2017. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar

Listing date. :­ 3.3.2017 Court. No. : R­1 Item No.. :   14 SECTION IIIA       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.  9477 OF 2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ­11             ....PETITIONER VERSUS M/S ZOHRA EMPORIUM  ....RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT The matter above mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 31 st  Mrach, 2014, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following Order:­ “Delay condoned. Issue notice. Tag with SLP(C)No.7660 of 2012 . ” Accordingly Show cause notice was issued to sole respondent on 22 nd  May, 2014 Neither AD Card nor unserved cover containing notice has been received back so far. Connected matters of SLP 2012(SLP NO. 2807/2012 main matter etc.) are complete matters Service of notice is not complete. The matter above­mentioned is listed before the Ld. Registrar's Court with this office report for order. DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2017.        ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:­ Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate.                      ASSISTANT REGISTRAR tm3

°ITEM NO.14 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.9477/2014CIT-XI Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S ZOHRA EMPORIUM Respondent(s)(With office report)Date : 03/03/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv. Mr. Satyavrat Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RFresh steps for service on sole respondent be taken within two weeks' from today and notice thereafter.List again on 03 rd April, 2017. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar

SECTION­III            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8512 OF 2012 M/s Manglore Refinery & Chem. Ltd.    ......Appellant       ­Versus­ Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore         ......Respondent OFFICE REPORT The matter above­mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 14 th December, 2012 when the Court was pleased to pass the following order:­ “Admit. Tag with C.A. Nos. 5989­5990 of 2012.” Accordingly, Notice of Lodgement of Petition of Appeal was issued to the sole respondent on 22 nd January, 2013. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Counsel for the respondent has on 10 th May, 2013 filed counter affidavit on behalf of the sole respondent but has not filed Vakalatnama/Appearance so far despite registry's request dated 16 th May, 2013 and 13 th  June, 2014. Original record has been received from the appelate Tribunal. The matter above mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this Office Report.  Dated this the 8 th  day of September, 2014.                                               ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to :­ 1. Mr. M.P. Devanath, Advocate,   B­6/10, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi 2. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Advocate Central Agency Section.                                        ASSISTANT REGISTRAR c1

SECTION­III            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8512 OF 2012 M/s Manglore Refinery & Chem. Ltd.    ......Appellant       ­Versus­ Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore         ......Respondent OFFICE REPORT The matter above­mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 14 th December, 2012 when the Court was pleased to pass the following order:­ “Admit. Tag with C.A. Nos. 5989­5990 of 2012.” Accordingly, Notice of Lodgement of Petition of Appeal was issued to the sole respondent on 22 nd January, 2013. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Counsel for the respondent has on 10 th May, 2013 filed counter affidavit on behalf of the sole respondent but has not filed Vakalatnama/Appearance so far despite registry's request dated 16 th May, 2013 and 13 th  June, 2014. Original record has been received from the appelate Tribunal. The matter above mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this Office Report.  Dated this the 8 th  day of September, 2014.                                               ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to :­ 1. Mr. M.P. Devanath, Advocate,   B­6/10, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi 2. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Advocate Central Agency Section.                                        ASSISTANT REGISTRAR c1

æITEM NO.37 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).36496/2012(From the judgement and order dated 27/05/2011 in ITA No.2046/2010 of TheHIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)C.I.T NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUSBISHAN SWAROOP RAM KISHAN AGRO P.LTD. Respondent(s)(With office report)Date: 31/03/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBAL (IN CHAMBERS)For Petitioner(s) Mrs.Shubhra Rai, Adv. Mrs.Anil Katiyar, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The delay in filing the process fee and spare copy is condoned. (Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Assistant Registrar

XITEM NO.30 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 PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)......../2014 CC 4121/2014(From the judgement and order dated 06/08/2013 in ITA No.337/2013 of TheHIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)CIT-XI Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S ZOHRA EMPORIUM Respondent(s)WITH I.A.1 (C/delay in filing SLP,c/delay in refiling SLP andoffice report)Date: 31/03/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGHFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Rupesh Kumar,Adv. Ms. Shipra Ghosh,Adv. Ms. Tanushree Sinha,Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.(Not present)For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice. Tag with SLP(C)No.7660 of 2012. |(Sarita Purohit) | |(Sneh Bala Mehra) ||Court Master | |Assistant Registrar |

ITEM NO.17 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).10190/2012C.I.T NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUSBISHAN SAROOP RAM KISHAN AGRO P.LTD. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report )WITHSLP(C) NO.12026/2012SLP(C) NO.11869/2012SLP(C) NO.16130/2012Date: 11/02/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms Samina Sheikh, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E RSLP(C) NO.16130/2012 Sole respondent has failed to file counter affidavit despite finalchance granted on the last date. No further steps required. Present SLP alongwith connected SLP(C) Nos. 10190, 12026 and 11869of 2012 be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court as per rules.| | |(M.A.SAYEED) || | |REGISTRAR |hj

rITEM NO.59 COURT NO.15 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).36495/2012(From the judgement and order dated 27/05/2011 in ITA No.1776/2010 of TheHIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)C.I.T NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUSBISHAN SWAROOP RAM KISHAN AGRO P.LTD. Respondent(s)(Office report for directions)Date: 20/01/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR (In Chambers)For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ravindera Kumar Verma, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay in filing the process fee is condoned. The Registry may process the matter further. (SONIA KUMARI) (PHOOLAN WATI ARORA) SR.P.A. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

:ITEM NO.27 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.K. HANJURAPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).10190/2012C.I.T NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUSBISHAN SAROOP RAM KISHAN AGRO P.LTD. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)WITHSLP(C) Nos.12026,11869,16130,36495 and 36496/2012(with office report)Date: 09/01/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms. Prachi Bajpai, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E RSLP(C) Nos.10190,12026 and 11869/2012 The learned counsel for the petitioner is present. What is palpable from the perusal of the office report is thatservice is complete as against the respondents but no one has enteredappearance on their behalf. Therefore, the SLPs shall be processed forlisting before the Hon'ble Court if and when the connected one gets ready.SLP(C) No.16130/2012 The learned counsel for the petitioner is present.Item No.27 -2- The learned Advocate, Mr. Ved Jain, appearing on behalf of the solerespondent seeks and is granted four weeks' time to file the vakalatnamaand the counter affidavit. List again on 11.2.2014.SLP(C) Nos.36495 and 36496/2012 The office report reveals that the matter is to be listed before theHon'ble Judge in Chambers. List and await orders.| | | (M.K. HANJURA) || | |REGISTRAR || | | |rd

fITEM 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 M.A. SAYEEDPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).10190/2012C.I.T NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUSBISHAN SAROOP RAM KISHAN AGRO P.LTD. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report )WITHSLP(C) NO.12026/2012SLP(C) NO.11869/2012SLP(C) NO.16130/2012SLP(C) NO.36495/2012SLP(C) NO.36496/2012Date: 25/10/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr Gobind Kumar, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In these batch of matters, status of service on the respondent isshown in a tabular chart which indicates that barring SLP(C) No.16130/2012, in rest of the matters, respondents are reported to be dulyserved but none appeared on their behalf. In SLP(C) No. 16130/2012, on behalf of the sole respondent, the ld.Counsel, Mr Ved Jain has undertaken to file vakalatnama and counteraffidavit by next date. Four weeks' time is granted. Complete set ofpleadings has been received by the ld. Counsel. -2-Item No.21 In SLP(C) Nos. 36495 and 36496 of 2012, despite specificdirections, the ld. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to take stepsagainst the respondent. Office report in default be placed before the Hon'ble Judge inChambers for necessary orders/directions. List again on 4.12.2013.| | |(M.A.SAYEED) || | |REGISTRAR |hj

0ITEM 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).2807/2012C.I.T-VII NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUSRAM KISHAN DASS Respondent(s)WITH SLP(C) NO. 10190 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 10191 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 11869 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 12026 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 12027 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 16130 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 27681 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 2808 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 2810 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 2811 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 36495 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 36496 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 6082 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 6680 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 7573 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 7660 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 8512 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 8761 of 2012(With office report)Item No.35 -2-SLP(C) NO. 9463 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 9720 of 2012(With office report)Date: 10/09/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms. Shilpi Satya Priyasatyam, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Bhoomika Choudhury, Adv. Ms. Kavita Jha, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As per the status/position shown in the Tabular Chart, it appearsthat in SLP(C) No.2807, 2808, 2810, 2811, 8512, 9463, 9720, 10191 and12027/2012, the learned Advocate, Ms.Kavita Jha had accepted notice onbehalf of the sole respondent and undertaken to file vakalatnama andcounter affidavit but till date no steps seem to have been taken. Sole respondent is ordered to proceed ex parte. Further necessary orders to be passed as and when the other connectedmatters would become ready. In SLP(C) Nos.6082, 6680,7660,7573, 8761 and 27681/2012, a submissionhas been advanced by the learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of Ms.Kavita Jha that she does not wish to file any counter affidavit on record.Item No.35 -3- Further necessary orders to be passed as and when the other connectedmatters would become ready.SLP(C) No.11869,16130,10190 and 12026/2012 In these two petitions, respondents are reported to be duly andproperly served but none appeared on their behalf.SLP(C) 36495 and 36496/2012 Notice be reissued to the sole respondent on filing of the processfee and spare copies within two weeks through the concerned District Courtin addition to postal service. List again on 25.10.2013.| | | (M.A. SAYEED) || | |REGISTRAR || | | |rd

¾ITEM 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 M.A. SAYEEDPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).2807/2012C.I.T-VII NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUSRAM KISHAN DASS Respondent(s)WITH SLP(C) NO. 10190 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 10191 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 11869 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 12026 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 12027 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 16130 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 27681 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 2808 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 2810 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 2811 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 36495 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 36496 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 6082 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 6680 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 7573 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 7660 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 8512 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 8761 of 2012(With office report)Item No.30 -2-SLP(C) NO. 9463 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 9720 of 2012(With office report)Date: 05/08/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s)

Ms. Bhomika Choudhury, Adv. Ms. Kavita Jha, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In these batch of matters, on behalf of the respondent, the leanedAdvocate-on-Record, Ms.Kavita Jha though accepted notice and undertook tofile vakalatnama and counter affidavit but till date no steps seems to havebeen taken. Two weeks' time is granted, as a final chance, for takingnecessary steps, failing which further necessary orders shall be passed. The duly represented respondents in the above-mentioned matters aregranted four weeks' time for filing counter affidavit. Notice be reissued to sole respondent (common in both the matters inSLP(C) No.36495/2012 and 36496/2012 through the concerned District Court inaddition to postal service.Item No.30 -3- In the other matters, as shown in the Tabular Chart in the OfficeReport, sole respondent is reported to be duly and properly served but noneappeared on his behalf. List again on 10.9.2013.| | | (M.A. SAYEED) || | |REGISTRAR || | | |rd

VITEM NO.12 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 3457/2012(From the judgment and order dated 27/05/2011 in ITA No.1776/2010 of TheHIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXDELHI-1, NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUSBISHAN SWAROOP RAM KISHAN AGRO P.LTD. Respondent(s)WITH I.A. 1 (C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND OFFICE REPORT) WITHS.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 3652 of 2012WITH I.A. 1 (C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND OFFICE REPORT)Date: 23/11/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKURFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Amarjit Singh Chandhiok, ASG Mr. Gurpreet S. Parwanda, Adv. Ms. Monika Tyagi, Adv. Mr. S. Sadasiva Reddy, Adv. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, 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. Tag with Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.2807 of 2012. |(VINOD LAKHINA) | |(KUSUM GULATI) ||COURT MASTER | |COURT MASTER |

ITEM NO.1 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 5463/2012)(From the judgement and order dated 27/05/2011 in ITA No.1350/2010 of TheHIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)C.I.T-VII Petitioner(s) VERSUSSUNDER EXPORTS Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP, c/delay in refiling SLPand office report)Date: 14/09/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIKFor Petitioner(s) Mr. A.S. Chandhiok,ASG. Mr. Arijit Prasad,Adv. Mr. N.K. Karhail,Adv. Mr. Ritesh Kumar,Adv. Mr. Piyush Sanghi,Adv. Ms. Shweta Gupta,Adv. Mr. Sidharth Tyagi,Adv. Mr. Arjun Pal,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 S.L.P. (C) No.2807 of 2012. [ Alka Dudeja ] [ Indu Satija ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master

"ITEM NO.13 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 7942/2012)(From the judgement and order dated 27/05/2011 in TA No.238/2011of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VII,NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUSRAM KISHAN DASS Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 07/05/2012 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. Mohan Parasaran,ASG. Ms. Niranjana Singh,Adv. Mr. Gaurav Dhingra,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 Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as also on the special leave petition. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned counsel, appears for the respondent. Tag this petition with S.L.P. (C) No.2807 of 2012. [ Alka Dudeja ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar

4ITEM NO.8 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 5559/2012)(From the judgement and order dated 27/05/2011 in ITA No.2035/2010of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)C.I.T-I DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUSBISHAN SAROOP RAM K AGRO P.LTD. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 04/04/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIKFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati,AG. Mr. Rupesh Kumar,Adv. Mr. D.D. Kamat,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. Ms. Kavita Jha, learned counsel appears for the respondent. Tag this petition with S.L.P. (C) No.2807 of 2012. [ Alka Dudeja ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar

tITEM NO.5 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 4697/2012)(From the judgement and order dated 27/05/2011 in ITA No.1965/2010of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)C.I.T NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUSBISHAN SWAROOP RAM KISAHN AGRO P.LTD. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)With S.L.P. (C) No........../2012 (CC 4927/2012)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 23/03/2012 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 SWATANTER KUMARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati,AG Mr. Rupesh Kumar,Adv. Mr. Anupam Prasad,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 applications for condonation of delay as also on the special leave petitions. Ms. Kavita Jha, learned counsel appears for the respondent. Tag these petitions with S.L.P. (C) No.2807 of 2012. [ Alka Dudeja ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar

RITEM NO.18 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) No(s).11033/2011(From the judgement and order dated 02/11/2010 in ITA No.257/2009of The HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM)POPULAR AUTOMOBILES Petitioner(s) VERSUSC.I.T.,COCHIN Respondent(s)Date: 19/03/2012 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. V. Giri,Sr.Adv. Mr. V. Balaji,Adv. Mr. Vinod Mehta,Adv. Mr. Asai Thambi,Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Gourab Banerjee,ASG. Mr. Sahil Tagotra,Adv. Mr. Vikas Malhotra,Adv. Ms. Anita Sahani,Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, states that the High Court has taken it's view only on limitation and not on merits. In the circumstances, the assessee will not press those grounds in the special leave petition, which deal with merits. On the question of limitation, therefore, leave is granted. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar

ÖITEM NO.9 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 4187/2012)(From the judgement and order dated 27/05/2011 in ITA No.1777/2010of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)C.I.T-1 DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUSBISHAN SWAROOP RAM KISAHN AGRO P.LTD. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 16/03/2012 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. Mohan Parasaran,ASG. Mr. Gaurav Dhingra,Adv. Mr. S.K. Sahijpal,Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan,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. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned counsel appears for the respondent. Tag this petition with S.L.P. (C) No.2807 of 2012. [ Alka Dudeja ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar

¼ITEM NO.5 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 4042/2012)(From the judgement and order dated 27/05/2011 in ITA No.2033/2010of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)C.I.T Petitioner(s) VERSUSBISHAN SAROOP RAM KISHAN AGRO P.LTD. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 12/03/2012 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. Mohan Parasaran,ASG. Mr. Fuzail A. Ayyubi,Adv. Mr. Z. Hasan,Adv. Ms. Samata P.,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. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned counsel appears for the respondent. Tag this petition with S.L.P. (C) No.2807 of 2012. [ Alka Dudeja ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar

fITEM 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 3756/2012)(From the judgement and order dated 27/05/2011 in ITA No.170/2011of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)C.I.T VII NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUSRAM KISHAN DASS PROP.B.S.R.KISHAN Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 02/03/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Vivek Tankha,ASG. Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed,Adv. Mr. Vikas Malhotra,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. Ms. Kavita Jha, learned advocate appears for the respondent. Tag this petition with S.L.P. (C) No.2807 of 2012. [ Alka Dudeja ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar

ÞITEM NO.13 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 3683/2012)(From the judgement and order dated 27/05/2011 in ITA No.2047/2010of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)C.I.T-1 NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUSBISHAN SWAROOP RAM KISAHAN AGRO P.LTD. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 27/02/2012 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. Gaurab Banerji,ASG. Mr. Arjun Krishnan,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. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned counsel appears for the respondent. Tag this petition with S.L.P. (C) No.2807 of 2012. [ Alka Dudeja ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar

jITEM 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 3364/2012)(From the judgement and order dated 27/05/2011 in ITA No.2032/2010of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)C.I.T DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUSBISHAN SAROOP RAM KISHAN AGRO P.LTD. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 24/02/2012 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. Gaurab Banerji,ASG. Mr. Manoj Kaushik,Adv. Mr. Arjun Krishnan,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. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned counsel appears for the respondent. Tag this petition with S.L.P. (C) No.2807 of 2012. [ Alka Dudeja ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar

(ITEM NO.21 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) No(s).11033/2011(From the judgement and order dated 02/11/2010 in ITA No.257/2009of The HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM)POPULAR AUTOMOBILES Petitioner(s) VERSUSC.I.T.,COCHIN Respondent(s)Date: 21/02/2012 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. V. Giri,Sr.Adv. Mr. V. Balaji,Adv. Mr. Vinod Mehta,Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Gourab Banerjee,ASG. Mr. Vikas Malhotra,Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The special leave petition shall stand over for four weeks. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar

\212ITEM 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 2906/2012)(From the judgement and order dated 27/05/2011 in ITA No.2039/2010of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)C.I.T,NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUSBISHAN SWAROOP RAM KISHAN AGRO 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. Mohan Parasaran,ASG. Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed,Adv. Mr. D.L. Chidananda,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. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned counsel, appears for the respondent. Tag this petition with S.L.P. (C) No.2807 of 2012. [ Alka Dudeja ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar

8ITEM 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 2680/2012)(From the judgement and order dated 27/05/2011 in ITA No.2038/2010of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)C.I.T.,NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUSBISHAN SWAROOP RAM KISHAN AGRO PVT.LTD. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP, c/delay in refiling SLPand office report)Date: 13/02/2012 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. Goolam E. Vahanvati,AG. Mr. Arijit Prasad,Adv. Mr. Anoopam Prasad,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 Issue notice on the applications for condonation of delay as also on the special leave petition. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent. Tag this petition with S.L.P. (C) No.2807 of 2012. [ Alka Dudeja ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar

¤ITEM NO.51 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 S.G. SHAHPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).11033/2011POPULAR AUTOMOBILES Petitioner(s) VERSUSC.I.T.,COCHIN Respondent(s)Date: 24/01/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R No request for filing counter affidavit. List before the Hon'ble Court as per rules. (S.G.SHAH) REGISTRARhj

ITEM NO.5 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)....../2011(CC 6572/2011)(From the judgement and order dated 02/11/2010 in ITA No.257/2009of The HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM)POPULAR AUTOMOBILES Petitioner(s) VERSUSC.I.T.,COCHIN Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP)Date: 18/04/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. V. Giri,Sr.Adv. Mr. V. Balaji,Adv. Mr. Pravesh Thakur,Adv. Mr. M. Sadique,Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice. No ad-interim stay. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar