Appeal Dismissed: No Substantial Legal Question Found in ITAT Order Challenges for AY 2016-17 on Additions and Depreciation.

The court condoned a 7-day delay in filing the appeal, allowing it to proceed. The appellant challenged the ITAT's order for AY 2016-17, presenting multiple questions of law, including issues on additions, depreciation, and MAT applicability. However, the court determined no substantial question of law arose, leading to the appeal's dismissal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
- Condonation of delay in filing the appeal
- Assailing the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for AY 2016-17
- Proposed questions of law for consideration by the court

Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
An application was moved seeking condonation of a 7-day delay in filing the appeal. The court, considering the period of delay, inclined to condone the delay and ordered accordingly. The application was disposed of in the terms mentioned.

Assailing the Tribunal's Order for AY 2016-17:
The appeal sought to challenge the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for AY 2016-17. The appellant/revenue presented various questions of law for the court's consideration. These questions included issues related to the addition of certain amounts, depreciation claims, deletion of certain additions made by the Assessing Officer, and the applicability of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provision on a banking company.

Proposed Questions of Law for Consideration:
The appellant/revenue proposed several questions of law for the court's consideration. These questions covered matters such as the deletion of additions, depreciation claims, loss on shifting of securities, disallowance under a specific section, and the applicability of MAT provision on a banking company. The appellant acknowledged that some of the proposed questions were addressed in a previous decision by the court, emphasizing the principle of consistency. The court noted that one of the proposed questions was not raised during the relevant assessment years and, therefore, could not be considered for the AY 2016-17. Consequently, the court found that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and closed the appeal accordingly.

---