ITA 11/2007 Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. Hon’ble B.S.Verma,J. (Review Appln. (MCC) No. 143 of 2008) (Delay Condonation Appln. No.472/2008) Heard Sri V.K.Bisht, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant /respondent and Sri Arvind Vashisth, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants/Income Tax. Reasons stated in the delay condonation application are satisfactory. The application is allowed. The delay in filing the application to recall the order dated 27.09.2007 is condoned. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the appeal was disposed of on 27.09.2007 in terms and conditions of the judgment passed in ITA No.280 of 2001 while the ITA No.280 of 2001 was decided on 28.09.2007. The ground is satisfactory and genuine to recall the order dated 27.09.2007. The review application is allowed. Order dated 27.09.2007 is recalled. The appeal be restored to its original number. The order disposing of the present appeal is being passed separately. (B.S.Verma,J.) (P.C.Verma,J.) 08.04.2008 08.04.2008 P.Singh ITA 11/2007 Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. Hon’ble B.S.Verma,J. Heard Sri Arvind Vashisth, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants/Income Tax and Sri V.K.Bisht, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent. After going through the record, we find that the controversy involved in this appeal, on facts and law, is squarely covered and has already been resolved by Division Bench of this Court in a judgment rendered on 28.09.2007 in Income Tax Appeal No. 280 of 2001, Sedco Forex International Inc., Mumbai vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut & another. This appeal is also disposed of in the terms and conditions of the aforementioned judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. (B.S.Verma,J.) (P.C.Verma,J.) 08.04.2008 08.04.2008 P.Singh