What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal filed by the Income Tax Department. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn without any costs.

The Income Tax Department filed an appeal before the High Court against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessee, M/s NMDC Limited, had settled the matter under the Viva-voce scheme.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the appeal filed by the revenue should be withdrawn given the settlement of the matter by the assessee under a scheme.

CIT vs M/Snmdc Limited | Telangana High Court 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 112 OF 2015 Income Tax Tribunal Appeal under Section 260-4 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B' Hyderabad in ITA No.714lHydl2012 for Assessment Year 2008-09 dated 28102/2014 preferred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-V, Hyderabad in ITA No.0305/JC-16/C|T(A)-V12010-11 dated 08/03/2012 preferred against the order of the Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, Range -16, Hyderabad PAN/GIR No.AAACN7352A dated 27 I 1 21201 0 Between: The Commissioner of lncome Tax-lV, Hyderabad. AND ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT M/s NMDC Limited, Khanjl Bhavan, 10-3-311/A Castle Hills, Masab Tank, Hyderabad ..,RESPONDENT/ APPELLANT For the Appellant : SRI J.V.PRASAD, SC FOR TNCOME TAX DEPARTMENT For the Respondent : SRI P.KARTHIK RAMANA, COUNSEL REpRESENTING SRI,S.OWARAKANATH, ADVOCATE The Court delivered the following: JUDGIVENT

HONO ]ITABLE, SIII .IUS'IICE L]JJAL I}HU\ AN ANI) HONOUI .,{I]LT.] SM,t. .I LIS.f ICIi I,. MAI)TI AV I I)E,\,I I.T.T.A. \o.112 o F 2015 .ll jDGMENTi t 'tr 1,t,t lit.\t r.ltrtt., l t1,,t ltltuttn, l leartl Mr LV.Prasad' lelrned Stancling Cotlnscl lbr the appellant- lncome Tax D( partment and Mr'P Karthik ll'anrana" learned counsel representtng Mr S.Dwarakanath, learned counsel tbr the respondent- ASSESSCE 2. This appt al by the revenue under Section 2604, of the Income Tax Act, 196 1 is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribu .ral in ITA No'714 ft1ydl20l2 dated 2S'02 201 4 for the assessment Yeat 2008-09' 3. lt is sub: ritted the respondent-assessee undcr thc Viva< Sc Vishuas Schcrnc rvhich has beerr apltroved by thc lncor.r.rc far [)e rarLtrle nt appea[. Appeat i:, accordingly, disposed olon withdrawal' Miscellar eous applications, il any pending' shall stand closed No costs has settlecl the lratter 4. L-r that I icw ot- thc rnattcr, appcllant secks to rvithdraw the 5. 6. '7 ":8,i,IH'56'U+'fi'J i. ,r1 St-:CTION OFFICER ,TRUE COPY// iili'r$lgffi tr*t',p**q1ll'i*rr""ii#J,' 6. Two CD CoPies 7 One SPare uoPY Ki. ,t$v To I

DATED'.1311212021 JUDGMENT ITTA.No.'|12 of 2015 :j i. 10 JAN 2022 ( HIGH COURT DISPOSING OF THE ITT q AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS' 46tr;;;, \ ---:------:-/

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/SNMDC LIMITED

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments