Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21, Mumbai v. Dhruv Kumar Khaitan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 898 OF 2020 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-21, Mumbai.. Appellant Versus Dhruv Kumar Khaitan .. Respondent ................... Mr. Sham Walve for the Appellant. Mr. Ryan Saldanha for the Respondent. ................... CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 03, 2021. P.C.: Heard Mr. Sham Walve, learned counsel for the appellant andMr. Ryan Saldanha, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been preferred by the revenue as the appellant against the order dated08.01.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench, Mumbai in ITA No. 135/Mum/2016 for the assessment year 2006-07. 3. The appeal is yet to be admitted. 4. On 19.01.2021 we had passed the following order :- "1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Respondent/assessee seeks withdrawal of the appeal filed by the revenue in view of settlementunder the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. 3. The appeal is by the revenue and it is the revenuewhich has to withdraw the appeal. In this connectionwe have passed a detailed order today in Income TaxAppeal No.1544 of 2012 (OS). 4. List these appeals along with Income Tax AppealNo.1544 of 2012 (OS) on 03.02.2021." 5. Today by a separate order Income Tax Appeal No. 1544 of 2012 (OS) has been disposed of on withdrawal by the revenue. When the matter is called upon Mr. Walve, learned standing counsel, revenue submits that he would also like to withdraw the appeal. 6. In that view of the matter, appeal is disposed of as withdrawn. 7. Refund as per Rules. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] [ UJJAL BHUYAN, J. ] Digitally signedRavindraby Ravindra M.AmberkarM.Date:Amberkar2021.02.0417:00:38+0530