15-IA-1543-25 IN ITXAL.DOC JYOTI IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY RAJESH MANE ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Digitally signed by JYOTI RAJESH MANE Date: 2026.08.03 12:57:41 +0530 INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1543 OF 2025 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.16845 OF 2024 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 5 Mumbai ...Applicant Versus Vodafone Idea Limited - Ay 09-10 Ita 3424/Mum/2014 ...Respondents _______ Mr. Vikas T. Khanchandani, for Applicant. Mr. Jitendra Singh a/w. Ms. Shivali Mhatre and Mr. Rajesh Gaikwad, for Respondent. _______ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. DATE: 31 JULY 2026 P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Khanchandani, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By this interim application, the applicant has prayed for condonation of delay of 90 days caused in filing the aforesaid appeal under the provisions of Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. We have perused the averments as made in the application, which make out a sufficient case for the delay to be condoned. Also, there is no written opposition placed on record on behalf of the respondent to this application, although an oral opposition. Page 1 of 2 Mane 15-IA-1543-25 IN ITXAL.DOC 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, and in the interest of justice, the application deserves to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

5. Office objections, if any, be removed within a period of eight weeks from today, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. (AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Page 2 of 2 Mane

15-IA-1543-25 IN ITXAL.DOC JYOTI IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY RAJESH MANE ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Digitally signed by JYOTI RAJESH MANE Date: 2026.08.03 12:57:41 +0530 INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1543 OF 2025 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.16845 OF 2024 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 5 Mumbai ...Applicant Versus Vodafone Idea Limited - Ay 09-10 Ita 3424/Mum/2014 ...Respondents _______ Mr. Vikas T. Khanchandani, for Applicant. Mr. Jitendra Singh a/w. Ms. Shivali Mhatre and Mr. Rajesh Gaikwad, for Respondent. _______ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. DATE: 31 JULY 2026 P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Khanchandani, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By this interim application, the applicant has prayed for condonation of delay of 90 days caused in filing the aforesaid appeal under the provisions of Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. We have perused the averments as made in the application, which make out a sufficient case for the delay to be condoned. Also, there is no written opposition placed on record on behalf of the respondent to this application, although an oral opposition. Page 1 of 2 Mane 15-IA-1543-25 IN ITXAL.DOC 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, and in the interest of justice, the application deserves to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

5. Office objections, if any, be removed within a period of eight weeks from today, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. (AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Page 2 of 2 Mane