What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn without any costs.

The Revenue filed an appeal before the High Court against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The respondent-assessee had settled the matter under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue should be withdrawn in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

CIT vs M/S Nmdc 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 |.T.T.A. NO: 636 OF 2016 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal under Section 260-4 of the lncome Tax Act, against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B' Hyderabad in ITA No.1793/Hyd/2013 for assessment year 2010-11 dated 0910512014 preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-V, Hyderabad in ITA No.000B/JC-16/C|T(A)-V/2013-14 dated 1610912013 preferred against the Order of the Additional Commissioner of lncome Tax, Range-l6, Hyderabad in pAN No.AAACN7325A, dated 121031201 3 Between: The Commissioner of lncome Tax-lV, Hyderabad. AND ...APPELLANT M/s NN4DC Limited, Khanij Bhavan, 10-3-31 1/A, Castle Hills, Masab Tank, Hyderabad ,.,RESPONDENT For the Appellant : SRI J.V.PRASAD, Sr. SC for lncome Tax Department For the Respondent : SRI P.KARTHIK RAMANA, Advocate rep. for SRI S.DWARAKANATH, Advocate The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

HONOI- RABLE Sltl JUSTICE UJ'JAL llHtlYr\N ANI) TIONOUII \I}LE SM'T. JTJSTICE P. MAI)ITAVI I)EVI l.'l-.T.A.No.6 3(r OF 2016 .lL DCMENT: rl r l'lttn hl, St i ltt\tt'( L 11tl bltt't'tttt I.leardMr.]V'Prasatl.learnctlstandirigCounsellirrthcallpeliant- lrrcontc '[ ax [)el artlncllt and Mr'P Karthik ltarnana' leartrcd counsel represcll t lll9 Mr.l .Dwarakallath. Icarned counsel Itrr the resllondeut- AS SC SSC C 2. 'fhis apper I by the revenue under Section 260,4 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribur al in ITA No'1793/[Iyd/2013 dated 09'05'2014 for the assessment Y :ar 20 I 0- I I ' 3. It is subn itted the respondent-assessee has settled the matter under the Vivad Se Vishwas Schemc which has bcen appt'oved by the lncotne 1'ax DcP tlltnent. 4. [n that vi :w ol- thc matter, appcllant sccks to u ithdrau' the appeal. 5. Appeal is accordingly' disposcd olon withclrawal' 6. Miscellan:ous applications, ilany pending' shall stand closed' 1 . No costs. Sd,,-K.SRINIVASA RAO .]OINT REGISTRAR /TTRUE COPY// SEC"ION OFFICER \ 1. The lncome Tax / ppellate Tribunal' Hyderabad.Bench 'B' Hvderabad 2. The Commission( r oI rnt6rn"liitApieals)-V' Hyderabad' 3. The Additionat cc nmrssiln;' ;iil;-"i;i;l' naris-e-t o' Hvderabad' /. one cC to Sn l.r .prasai'5i -sCloi r'r'o"p"rtment (OPUC) i. SllE ;E i; $i s*.i '*aiii"h'tn' Advocate (oPUC) 6. Two CD CoPies 7. One SPare CoPY Kj To

O,o- HIGH COURT DATED:131121202'l JUDGMENT ITTA.No.636 of 2016 r"a ' tI . .'.i: .1 ) '' Sj i-A id: /, 2 ] ttEf DISPOSING OF THE IT 'A AS WITHDARWN WITHOUT COSTS w\ I I n-b C\

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, vs. M/S NMDC LIMITED,

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Latest GST High Court judgments