Case Law › High Court › Itta/245/2015 Of Commissioner Of Income...

Itta/245/2015 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 v. M/S.rashtritya Ispat Nigam Limited

High Court 20 Sep 2022 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · aphc

Parties

Date of order

20 Sep 2022

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Itta/245/2015 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 v. M/S.rashtritya Ispat Nigam Limited, the High Court (2022) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Accordingly, the Income Tax Tribunal Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.245 OF 2015 JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar) Ms. M. Kiranmayee, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax, appearing on behalf of the appellant, seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Appeal. Permission is accorded. Accordingly, the Income Tax Tribunal Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR _______________________________ JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU Date:20.09.2022 Dsh Dsh 87 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU I.T.T.A. No.245 OF 2015(Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar) Dated: 20.09.2022

Facing a similar income-tax issue?

Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.

✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA

This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.

Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.