'TSI •*ii*ii<t<<, ©til+i'Ko,fqcii'ay t- ^ %^i ^ra^ (i?l3a<<^) OIVISION Bl HON'BLE MR. DHIRENEtRA MISHRA^ HON'BLE MR, R.N. CH^NbRAKAR. JJ I.T.A. No.09 of 2006 Aooellant Respondents (Appeal under Section 26p-A of Income Tax Act, 1961} Comrrfissioner. Income Tax. BilasDur Vs 1. In4ome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur. 2. Gy^n Oos, Qtr. Nci.491, Sector-4, Baico Nafaar. Korba (C6) ; Present: Mr. 5. Rajeshwar Rao, Advocate Mr. R.S. Marhas, Advocate for ORA L (Passed on Dhjrendra Mishra, J; 1. The appellant has preferred Income Tax Act, 1961 against ITA No.lS/JAB/06 by the 2. The assessee received ex-9ra^ was permitted to voluntory re-t the amount was Daid to the assl He was 9ronted exemption-in a —flffloyntwhich he received WqferiN lOTHf <f ftt^ ^raifgffSii^i NCH: for The appellant. espondent No.2. riesi OR D E R ^th May. 2009) ftis |iis appeal under Section 260A of the jthe order dated 19.04.2006 passed in Tax Appellate Tribunat, Jabalpur-. Lio amount of Rs.5,76,687/- after he |red from Balco. However, only 1/5 of in the assessment year 2003-04. jscordance with Section 10 (lOc) on the |n that financial year and not on Inc4me graf' ass&ssee ^^^(TeRTCT^' |i008—!,00,0fl0. "p-j'fj:i'{rT;1"''—-—- am^rwft;riw ^ a^> 'TSET ^|A|H^,. yTily'is, fs|<nwy. y^ sn^i iws (tjcji^^;) thfe Rs.5,00,000/-, as claimed by made by the Finance Act, in the said Drovision. The Inci| appedt by .the assessee gran1 relying upon some earlier judgmj 3. Learned counsel for the appe other matters wherein identictji by the appellant revenue, withdrawn on the qround that petition before the appetlate appellant may be permitted to review petition before the app^ 4. Learned counsel for resoond^ objection if the appeal is dispos^ 5. ^ccordinqlv.'the appeat 'is dispoj Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge <?>T*lf?1<^T ^ff*^if ^ f®'<l<Fa|<'$K ^sifOTan^i assessee, as prior to the amendment 2003iwherein the words 'received' was used )me TCD< ApDellate Tribtna! in further jed exemption for entire amount by ifcnts of the tribunal. llont revenue submits that in several auestion is involved. aooeal mas filed ho|»ever, the same were dismissed as fthe department has preferred review [tribunal. In these circumstances, the i^ithdraw this appeal with liberty to file llate tribunal. l^nt No.2 submitted that he has no >sjed of with the aforesoid liberty. ied of with the tibertv as orcyed for. Sd'- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ®TB<te^*1 ^ITCRI Ua-IK'liil—FS/9S—11/2008—1,00,000. •.t^s.^a s:', ^fvSW^y\i iii S3