IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
 . 
   ITA 108/2013  
 . 
 ITA 109/2013 
 . 
 ITA 110/2013 
 . 
 ITA 111/2013 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL) -1..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through Mr Sanjeev Rajpal, sr. standing counsel 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 C-1 INDIA PVT LTD     ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through Mr C A Sundaram, Sr. Advocate with Mr 
 Ajay Wadhwa and Mr Sandeep Kapur, Advs. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
    16.04.2013 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 These appeals have been filed by the revenue against the order 
 dated 24.7.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in 
 ITA Nos.1424-1427/Del/2012 relating to the assessment years 2001-02, 
 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 (respectively).  We find that before the 
 Tribunal both sides had agreed that the facts and circumstances of these 
 appeals were similar to the appeals in respect of Suresh Nanda.  It was 
 also agreed that the issues raised in the present matters could be 
 decided in view of the appeals pertaining to Suresh Nanda.  The Tribunal 
 . 
 has recorded this fact and it is on the basis of this that it has remanded the matter to the assessing officer for a decision afresh.  The 
 observations of the Tribunal are as under:- 
 . 
 ?3.4. Same additions were made in both the cases on substantive basis. 
 Both the parties agreed that the facts and circumstances are similar in 
 both the cases and the issues may be decided in view of the appeals of 
 Shri Suresh Nanda. 
 . 
 4. By order of even date in the case of Shri Suresh Nanda in ITA nos. 
 1428,1429 and 1430/Del/2012 for A.Ys. 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2004-05 we have 
 set aside these issues back to the file of AO to decide the same afresh 
 after giving the parties adequate opportunity of being heard afresh. 
 Following our order in the case of Shri Suresh Nanda we set aside the 
 issues back to the file of AO accordingly to decide afresh along with the 
 issues as to whether any addition at all is called for and, if so in 
 which case the addition is to be made. 
 . 
 5. Apropos remaining grounds, it is pleaded that the disallowances have 
 been made on ad hoc basis without considering the explanation furnished 
 by the assessee and the ITAT judgment in its own case. 
 . 
 6. Since we have set aside the main issues back to the file of AO, 
 interest of justice will be served if the remaining issues in these 
 appeals are set aside back to the file of AO to decide all these issues 
 after considering the explanation given by the assessee and ITAT order.? 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 Since the Tribunal has merely remanded the matter to the assessing 
 officer, we see no reason to interfere with the same. 
 . 
 The appeals are dismissed. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 R.V.EASWAR, J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 APRIL 16, 2013/vld 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 $ 1 and 2 
 .