THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S NMDC LIMITED
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the Revenue sought to withdraw its appeal.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal before the High Court against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessee had settled the matter under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable when the matter has been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI lncome 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.287lHydl2013 the assessment year 2008-09 dated 1810712014 preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-V, Hyderabad in ITA No.0450/DCIT-16(1yClT(A)-V) 201 1-12 dated O3t12t2012 preferred against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, circle-16(1 ), Hyderabad in PAN No.AAACN7325A dated 1711212012. Between: The Commissioner of lncome Tax-lV, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT AND M/s NMDC Limited, Khanij Bhavan, 10-3-31 1/A, Castle Hills, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT For the Appellant : SRI J.V.PRASAD, SC for l.T,Department For the Respondent : SRI P.KARTHIK RAMANA, REPRESENTING FOR SRI S.DWARAKANATH, ADVOCATE The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD LT.T.A. NO: 297 OF 2015
r tro\oL l .\llt.l'- sl{t lL s'Il( l. L''l'l'\t' l}llt \',\\ ,\N t) tlONOUli.,/ lll-[' SNI'|-' 'lL'S I l( [ P' ]lAt)tl'\\'l l)11\ I l.T.l'..\.\o.297 o F 2015 .I U D(; Heard Mr..l V.Prasad' learned Starrdirlg Cotlllsel lirr the appellant- lncome Tax Del artment and Mr'P Karthik llamana' learned counsel representlng Mr. ,.Dwarakanath, learned counsel tbr the respondent- MENT: rl', . ll,u blL Srt.lLt\l1t,'L ttttl liltr\'tt)) ASSCSSCC. 2 This apper I by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 isdiectedagainsttheorderofthelncotrreTax,Appellate Tribunal in ITA No 287/Hyd/2013 dated 18 07 201:1 tbr the assessment vear 2008-09 3. lt is sub nittcd thc rcspotlclent-assessce hus scttlecl the Inatter under the Viva i Se Vishwas Schemc u'hich has bccrr approved by the lnconrc I rrx [) Partrrlctlt' -l' lrl tllat 'ic* oi'the ll'lilttcl' iillntilallt seeks trt uithclrau' the appeal Appeal is, accor<1ingl1'. disposcd of on rvithclrawal' Miscel aneous applications, if any pending' shall s-tand closed' 5 6 7 No cos :s. //TRUE COPY// srl/-K.SRINIVASA RAO -- JOINT REGISTRAR (io SECTION OFFICER To iii:g"*:$rLilifl $#:1}:di:}i3j[ifl+iiill","l,l ? lx: !'{ il!}i i",[fl {:'ffi iirij.,,rrueial oP U c s. One CC to Sri S Dwarak 6. Two CD CoPit s 7. One SPare Cr PY Kj)Iv I I
HIGH COURT DAf ED:1311212021 JUDGMENT ITTA.No.297 of 2015 DISPOSING OF THE II TA AS WITHDRAWN, WITHOUT COSTS. \ #\' Y . r^l 4C /4) - ^ rhQl
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026