Principal Commissioner Oflncome Tax - 8, v. M/S. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd

$~62 to 64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2914/2019, C.M. APPL.13511/2019 + W.P.(C) 2915/2019, C.M. APPL.13513/2019 + W.P.(C) 2917/2019, C.M. APPL.13516/2019 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 8 ..... Petitioner versus M/S. SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD ..... Respondent Through : Sh. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel.

Sh. Sachit Jolly and Sh. Arush Bhatia, Advocates, for respondent, in Item Nos. 62 to 64.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 26.03.2019 The Revenue argues in these petitions that the ITAT could not have extended the interim order beyond the period of 365 days, prescribed by Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This issue is now covered by the judgment of this Court in Pepsico Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT 376 ITR 87. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed along with the pending applications. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 26, 2019/ajk