%".'.'.TQi3W' W? Kfifiwfiffifiifi MGM mwamm MW?" Cfiifim" WW mmfimmm Héfifi CWURT G? mmwmmm Mfififi QQURT Q? Kfi%Mflf§"AE€& HEGM mam
IN ms men count? or mnxxrmu A'!_'_
mm-no mas ms 315'! DAY or Jay; "
mm HoK*nm 1uR..Ius'r1c1:. 15 V
THE HOIPBLE Mmmsmjcn
Income Apyea: of V4
Between:
1. THE commgssgoum' 'C>F¥T{r3t:x31gg_;; TAX: 2 R
c.R.Bu1L:3i'm_,_ QUEENS ROAD ' ..
BANGAi.;.GR4EfV . «
2 TPiEINCOMB3.;f§'AX {_)'F'P'I<'--.'.ER_
wzam; 113(1), "R E31,IILii)1r-£{3",""' '
QUEENsRRr3Ap'R%.% j
BANGALORE'.f-, APPELLANTS
" _ [fiat SESHACHA1A,ADV.,8s
~ sm. KVARAVIND,ADV.,]
sRm_§v:...KA1¢APPA
Trina'? _NQ.'3<)6, III FLOOR
.IQBr'&.L FILM-A,36.
. MELLFERSROAD
B_EI~?3Q~N TOWN
BAI§IGALORE~--560 045 RESPONDENT
[SR§ K MALXABARAO, ADV., FOR
SR}. 8 §’Af~?’i’HASARATHI, ADV.,}
THiS A§3’I”EAL IS FSLED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF’ i.’I’.A{3’i’, 1961
…ARIS¥NG GUT OF ORDER DATED 31-03-2007 PASSED IN ITA NO.
262/’8NGf2{)O7, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, PRAYINC} TO
FORMULATE THE SU}E3f3’I’ANI’IAL QUES’l’iGNS OF’ LAW STATED
THEREIN, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
BY THE ITAT BANCEALORE IN PTA NO. 262/ENG/2067, DATED 31-05»
2007 CONFIRM THE ORDERS OF THE APPELLATE CQMMESSIONER
CONFIRMING THE} GRDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OF’FiCER,
W$’.§§”§ fififim
‘WW”M*’9M’!U$lT W ww’mm#%m§MWW mwm mwwmf ,M:,§”” mmmwwzmmm WWW €Jfi;fi%ifi”¥” cw mmmmm Mififi emmw 6?? Kflflwflffififl fifififl CQUW’ Q? W’AR%.&”%'”fia
WARE – 15(1), BANGALORE, IN THE 1Nrz3REsT”.zi§31′;3iiS?:’CE_fAND
EQUITY AND A’
THIS Ai°PEAL comma on §’o’R>’ ‘HEAr§2INe,:”*r:a1s ‘1§AYH,”;D’ivx
SHYLENDRA KUMAR.J., DELIVERED vmE:_-1i%Qi,LQ\js&’ING~:
Sri. M V Seshacfiala, appeliants
, revenue has filed 5; éérmission to withdraw
the appeal in accepted the
law as in the case of
, mx vs. KOODATHIL
mported in 120091309 11212
113[Bon;}_AA_k%’ ‘. A
2. Itzariled counsel for the respondent
‘n.A§LS {lQ”Q13j§§Ct:£{3fl for withdrawal of the appeai.
_ 3. Aaébiviingly, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
561/ ‘3
Judg3
Sd/S
J u&§§
AN/—