Itta/398/2015 Of The Commr Of Income Tax-Iv, Hyderabad v. M/S Nmdc Limited, Hyderabad

rN [FORDTTIEAST{TE ] ** " M [o ] [DAy, ][-T ] JSLI^',ss [tt" ][31.P5 ] t1t35!l'"t uJJAL BH,YANTHE P'MADHA'I [DEvl]rHE HoNouRo""''Hi'sTlcE i.T.T.A. [NO: 398 OF ][2015] lncome [Tax Tribunal ][Appeal ][under ][Section ][26:A ][of ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Act' ][1961']against [the ][order ][of ][tn" ][l,iJo-m" ][Tax ][Appellate ][Tribunal' ][Hyderabad ][Bench ]['B']Hyderabad [in ][lrA ][No'288/';;;;;;t ][for ][assessment ][vear ][2009-'10 ][dated ][18/07/20'13]preferred [against ][the ][OrOer ][of ][the ][Commission"' ]v/2011-12 [of ][lncome ][dated ][311212012 ][Tax ][(Appeals)-V'][preferred]Hyderabad [in ][lrA ][No.o3ri]ioo, ]"'a-1u,",T-(A) against [the ][Order ][of ][tne ][nOOltionat ][Commissioner of lncome ][Tax' ][Range-16' ][Hyderabad],n"rO* [*o.OOOCN7325A ][dated ][3Ot ][121201 ][1] Between: ThecommissioneroflncomeTax-lV'Hyderabad "'APPELLANT/RESPoNDENT AND 1O-3-311/A [Castle ][Hills' ][Masab ][Tank' ][Hyderabad']tr//s NMDC [Limited, Khanij Bhavan'] ...RESPONDENT/APPELLANT For the [Appellant ][: ] [J'V'PRASAD' ] For the [Respondent ][: SRI ][P'KARTHIK ][RAMANA'^R.EPRESENTING ] SRI S'DWARAKANATH' [Advocate] The Court [delivered ][the ][following: JUDGMENT] To HONOT RABLE SRI JUSTICE U.IJAL I}HU\'ANANDHONOUR \BLtr SMT..,USTICE P. MADHAVI DE\ I LT.T.A.No.39 tt oF 20ls JUDGMENT: tt. H..,. t.t..\ttJt.tt:-. t ,t.,t Btltt.,.t,1. l-{eard Mr..l. V.Prasad. learned Standing Counsel fbr the appellant-Income Tax Dep rtlnent and Mr.P.Karthik I{arrana. Iearned counselrepresenting Mr.S Dwarakanath. Iearned counsel lor the respondent-ASS C SSCC.Income Tax Dep rtlnent and Mr.P.Karthik I{arrana. Iearned counselrepresenting Mr.S Dwarakanath. Iearned counsel lor the respondent-ASS C SSCC. 2. This appeal by the revenue under Section 2604. [of ][the lncome]Tax Act, 196 1 [j ]; directed [against ][the ][order ][of ][the ][Income ][Tax]Appellate Tribunr I in ITA [No.288 ][lHydl2)l3 ][dated ][18 ][07'2014 lor]the assessment Ye [Lr ][2009- ][i 0.] 3. It is submi [ted the ][respondent-assessee ][has settled ][the ][matter]under the Vivad [! ][e ][Vishwas ][Scheme ][which ][has ][bcen approved ][by ][the]Income Tax [DePz ][ftment.] 4. In that [vit ][w ][of ][the ][matter, appellant ][seeks ][to ][withdrarv ][the]appeal. 5. Appeal is, [rccordingly, ][disposed ][of ][on ][withdlarval'] 6. Misccllant [or-rs ][applications, ][ilan--v ][pending' ][shall ][stand ][closed'] 1. No costs. sd/-Io?SXSsr$EiR //TR'E [[coPY// ]]sEcrloN i ffi"'*fi r- m**iu':p;lt*ius$ [#]imt*"".* [s,\-]Ki //TR'E [[coPY// ]]sEcrloN [oFFtcER] HIGH COURT DATED:1311212)21 JUDGMENT.\ \-l E, STA l'€lTTA.No.398 of [:1015]'sa+;itJ3 0 DEllz,[n('.-) Disposing [of ][tht ][iTTA ][as]withdrawn, [with ][>ut ][costs'] u)