Assistant Director of Income-tax Archives - Tax Heal https://www.taxheal.com/tag/assistant-director-of-income-tax Complete Guide for Income Tax and GST in India Mon, 06 Jul 2026 06:49:36 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.2 State-governed charitable trust is entitled to exemption as fund transfer for hazard mitigation equipment does not violate section 13. https://www.taxheal.com/p-sam-koshy-and-nandikonda-narsing-rao-jj.html Mon, 06 Jul 2026 06:49:36 +0000 https://www.taxheal.com/?p=135441 State-governed charitable trust is entitled to exemption as fund transfer for hazard mitigation equipment does not violate section 13. Issue Whether the appellant-trust, formed by the State Government for disaster mitigation, is entitled to tax exemption under Section 11 when its interest income was spent on purchasing high-end hazard mitigation computing equipment in the name… Read More »

]]>

State-governed charitable trust is entitled to exemption as fund transfer for hazard mitigation equipment does not violate section 13.

Issue

Whether the appellant-trust, formed by the State Government for disaster mitigation, is entitled to tax exemption under Section 11 when its interest income was spent on purchasing high-end hazard mitigation computing equipment in the name of the State Government’s Secretariat, or if such an arrangement violates the restrictive provisions of Section 13.

Facts

  • Trust Setup: The appellant-trust was established by the State Government under the Indian Trusts Act and registered as a charitable entity under Section 12AA.

  • Funding & Control: The initial corpus was contributed entirely by the State Government, and the State Disaster Management Unit functioned as the operational secretariat for the trust.

  • Objects & Grant: The trust deed explicitly permitted using interest income as matching grants for disaster mitigation projects along the state’s coastline.

  • The Transaction: During the assessment year 2004-05, the trust claimed Section 11 exemption and accumulation under Section 11(2) on interest from fixed deposits. Out of this, ₹3.05 crores was granted to purchase high-end computing equipment for the A.P. Hazard Mitigation & Emergency Cyclone Recovery project.

  • Adjudication History:

    • The Assessing Officer denied the Section 11 exemption and taxed the entire interest income.

    • The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the AO’s decision and allowed the exemption.

    • The ITAT (Tribunal) reversed the first appellate authority, holding that Section 13 was violated and denying the exemption.

Decision

  • Exemption Restored: The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and ruled in favor of the assessee trust.

  • Legitimate Fund Deployment: The court observed that the appellant provided clear bank certificates proving the legitimate transfer of funds to open a Letter of Credit for the equipment vendor.

  • No Adverse Findings: The court highlighted that the invoices being in the name of the State Government’s Disaster Management unit did not invalidate the charitable act, as there was absolutely no finding of misuse, misappropriation, or siphoning of funds.

Key Takeaways

  • Substance Over Form in Charity: When a state-backed trust spends money directly on its specified public utility goals (like cyclone recovery tracking), technicalities regarding whose name is printed on the vendor invoice will not nullify the exemption.

  • Section 13 Requires Real Abuse: To invoke the disqualifying provisions of Section 13, the tax department must establish concrete evidence of fund diversion, personal benefit, or financial misappropriation—not just procedural or administrative overlaps with government departments.

HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
A.P. Vulnerability Reduction Fund Trust
v.
Assistant Director of Income-tax Exemptions-II
P. Sam Koshy and NANDIKONDA NARSING RAO, JJ.
Income Tax Tribunal Appeal No.173 of 2013†
JUNE  9, 2026
P. Sam Koshy.-The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging the order dated 23.07.2012 in I.T.A.No.1138/Hyd/2011 passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench ‘A’, Hyderabad, (for short, ‘the impugned order’).
2. Heard Mr. C.V. Narasimham, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Sri Vijhay K. Punna, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, for the respondent.
3. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal had allowed the appeal preferred by respondent and reversed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
4. The Tribunal in the course of passing the impugned order had reversed the finding given by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) so far as provision of Section 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) being violative and also insofar as the appellant being entitled for exemption under Section 11 of the Act.
5. The appellant, viz., A.P. Vulnerability Reduction Fund Trust, was formed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in accordance with provisions of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 on 27.11.1997 with Registration No.33/1998. The Trust was established to provide protection to the vulnerable areas of the State coastline, human and animal life, public and private property as against ravages of nature including cyclones, floods, etc. Since the purpose and object of the Trust being charitable it was also registered under the provisions of Section 12AA of the Act. The entire corpus of the appellant is one which is contributed by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Disaster Management Unit of the State acts as a secretariat for the appellant as per Clause (iv)(6) of the Trust Deed. The administration of the funds as per Clause 7(d) of the Trust Deed is done by the Committee constituted by the Trust. As per clause (5) of the Trust Deed, the interest income of the funds can be used as matching grant to achieve the objects of the trust. The activities taken up by the appellant are mainly to evolve a long-term policy for hazard reduction, to formulate a long term disaster mitigation strategy, to enhance the disaster preparedness, to develop early warning capabilities at state level and further to create, maintain and upgrade the necessary infrastructural facilities accordingly. The income that is generated from the interest is utilized to undertake programmes, projects and schemes in order to meet the objects and activities carried out by the appellant so as to minimize the adverse impact in the event of any disaster. One of the major requirements for minimizing of adverse impact in the event of a disaster is by building a strong reliable and accurate warning dissemination system.
6. For the Assessment Year 2004-05, the appellant claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Act on the income earned as interest on fixed deposits as the income was accumulated as per Section 11(2) of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated the assessment proceedings wherein the appellant informed the Assessing Officer of having granted Rs.3,05,00,860/- in July, 2003 for the purpose of purchasing high-end computing equipment and accessories by which collection, storage and analyzing, using and disseminating data relevant for the Andhra Pradesh Hazard Mitigation & Emergency Cyclone Recovery project. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the same and doubted the contention of the appellant in the course of passing the Assessment Order dated 29.12.2006 and subjecting the entire interest income to tax by denying the exemption under Section 11 of the Act and raised a tax demand of Rs.79,23,878/-. Thereafter, the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 29.12.2006 was subjected to challenge before the Commissioner of Appeals who reversed the order of the Assessing Officer by allowing the appeal vide order dated 28.01.2011 holding that appellant be entitled for exemption under Section 11 of the Act. The order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals dated 28.01.2011 was subjected to challenge before the I.T.A.T. vide ITA.No.1138/HYD/2011, which stood allowed in favour of respondent vide the impugned order dated 23.07.2012 by reversing the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals by holding that the appellant herein is not entitled for exemption under Section 11 of the Act.
7. Aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the aims, objectives and activities of the appellant in the course of deciding the appeal. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal having lost sight of the fact that the activities undertaken by the appellant was for ensuring protection of the vulnerable areas in the State coastline so also the human and animal life in those areas by giving protection against ravages of nature like cyclones, floods, etc. According to him, the Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that the nature of activities undertaken by the appellant was duly covered under the charitable purpose as defined under the Income Tax Act itself. Likewise, it was also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal ignored the fact that Clause (5) of the Trust Deed permitted the appellant to use the interest on income as grants to achieve the objects of the appellant. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that merely non-entry of the purchases made in the Books of Account cannot by itself be permitted to draw an adverse inference so far as the actual usage of the funds are concerned. According to the appellant, the Tribunal failed to take note of its decision and the previous Assessment Order whereby a similar exemption under Section 11 of the Act was in fact granted to the appellant.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, opposing the appeal contended that the order passed by the Assessing Officer and the order passed by the Tribunal, when read in conjunction, would give a clear indication of the shortcomings in the case of appellant which would disentitle him from exemption under Section 11 of the Act. It was the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Department that in the course of the assessment, the assessee-appellant failed to explain as to how the so-called purchases of computer and other equipments made from M/s. Silicon Graphics were not reflected in the Books of Account nor was it reflected in the Balance Sheet; and therefore, contended that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal reversing the finding given by the Commissioner of Appeals cannot be said to be in any manner erroneous or contrary to law and thus prayed for rejection of the appeal by holding that the question of law raised does not have any merit.
10. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on a perusal of the records certain undisputed facts which are revealed from the pleadings are, viz.,
(a) the appellant herein is a Trust formed under the Indian Trust Act, 1882 by the then Government of Andhra Pradesh with a specific motive and object. The entire representatives of the Trust are from the Government of Andhra Pradesh;
(b) there is no dispute so far as the objectives of the Trust was to protect the vulnerability of the State coastline and the human and animal habitat from the ravages of nature like cyclones and floods;
(c) the activities undertaken by the appellant squarely falls within the definition of charitable purpose under the Act; and
(d) the entire corpus of the appellant-Trust is also contributed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh;
(e) There is also no dispute so far as the appellant having purchased high-end computing equipment and accessories for collection, storage, analization, usage and disseminating data relevant for the A.P. Hazard Mitigation and Emergency Cyclone Recovery project. These high-end computing equipments was one of the major equipment which are required in order to minimize the adverse impact of any disaster and it was possible only by completing the strong reliable and accurate warning dissemination system. The purchases made of Rs.3,05,00,680/- in July, 2003 was also for the very same purpose; and
(f) similar issue that had arisen in the previous Assessment Year 2003-04 pertaining to the very same appellant was accepted by the respondent-Department and those issues stood decided in favour of appellant both by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and also by the Appellate Tribunal. Unlike this time, though the Commissioner of Appeals took a similar stand for this Assessment Year also, the Tribunal altogether took a different stand.
11. In addition to the aforesaid grounds what is also evidently apparent from the materials available on record is that the appellant produced certificates from its bank to show that the money was transferred for issuing Letter of Credit in favour of M/s. Silicon Graphics Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal also in fact had at one point of time noted that invoices of M/s.Silicon Graphics Pvt. Ltd. were in the name of Government of Andhra Pradesh Disaster Management. The Tribunal also found that the Assessing Officer did find purchase of equipment with M/s.Silicon Graphics Pvt. Ltd. and those purchases were made by the A.P. Hazard Mitigation and Emergency Cyclone Recovery project of the Government of Andhra Pradesh; and it was under this project that the Government had awarded the contract for purchase of high-end computing equipment and other accessories under the aforementioned A.P. Hazard Mitigation and Emergency Cyclone Recovery project.
12. The Tribunal also failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant-Truest was in fact carrying out their activities directly in collaboration with the A.P. Hazard Mitigation and Emergency Cyclone Recovery project and the Disaster Management unit of the State. Another admitted factual position which is reflected is that there does not seem to be any finding arrived at by the respondent-Department that the funds of the Trust have been misappropriated or misused or have been siphoned away by any of the officers of the appellant-Trust. In the absence of a categorical finding of any misuse or misappropriation of funds, except for the fact that purchases so made not being reflected in the Books of Account or in the Balance Sheet, it is difficult to reach to the conclusion that appellant had violated the conditions otherwise stipulated under Section 13 of the Act. In the event of there being no prima facie strong material to show any violation or non-compliance of the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, there does not seem to be any cogent material available to hold that the appellant is not entitled for exemption under Section 11 of the Act.
13. Another aspect which goes strongly in favour of appellant is that the assessment orders for the previous years, more particularly of the immediate preceding year, i.e., Assessment Year 2003-04, wherein the very same Tribunal vide I.T.A.No.283 of 2007 had upheld a similar stand taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2003-04 by holding that the appellant is entitled for exemption under Section 11 of the Act.
14. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is inclined to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in I.T.A.No.1138/Hyd/2011, dated 23.07.2012, and confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in I.T.A.No.649/Tr./CIT(A)/GNT/06-07, dated 28.01.2011.
15. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed as above. No costs.
16. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.
]]> Mandatory Contractual Site Restoration Provisions Are Fully Deductible and Cannot Be Added Back to Book Profits https://www.taxheal.com/srinath-sridevan-sr-adv-gayathri-hredai-thivakkaran-rajagopalan-sankar-ms-m-v-swaroop-and-b-devadharshini-advs-for-the-appellant-b-ramana-kumar-sr-standing-counsel-and-avinash-krishna.html Sat, 27 Jun 2026 06:14:19 +0000 https://www.taxheal.com/?p=134788 Mandatory Contractual Site Restoration Provisions Are Fully Deductible and Cannot Be Added Back to Book Profits Issue Whether a provision for site restoration expenses made pursuant to a mandatory contract with the Government of India is allowable as a business deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Whether such a provision constitutes an… Read More »

]]>

Mandatory Contractual Site Restoration Provisions Are Fully Deductible and Cannot Be Added Back to Book Profits

Issue

  • Whether a provision for site restoration expenses made pursuant to a mandatory contract with the Government of India is allowable as a business deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

  • Whether such a provision constitutes an unascertained liability that can be added back while computing book profits for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under Section 115JB.

Facts

  • The assessee-company is engaged in the prospecting and production of mineral oil under a joint venture agreement with the Government of India and ONGC for Assessment Years 2002-03 and 2004-05.

  • Under the terms of the joint venture contract, site restoration was a mandatory legal and operational obligation imposed on the assessee.

  • The assessee created a financial provision for these site restoration costs, debited the amount to its profit and loss account as an operating expense, and claimed a regular business deduction.

  • The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the claim under Section 37(1) on the grounds that no actual site restoration expenditure was physically incurred during the relevant previous years.

  • The AO further treated the provision as a future, unascertained liability and added it back to the company’s book profits while computing MAT under Section 115JB.

Decision

  • Deduction allowed under Section 37(1): Since site restoration was a compulsory contractual prerequisite for carrying out the mineral oil business, the provision made to meet this liability is a valid business expense eligible for deduction under Section 37(1).

  • No upward adjustment under Section 115JB: The provision arises from a binding, mandatory contractual obligation, which makes it a legally accrued and ascertained liability.

  • Final Ruling: Because the provision is an ascertained liability, it does not fall under the exclusions of Section 115JB and cannot be added back to increase the company’s book profits for MAT purposes. Both issues were decided in favor of the assessee.

Key Takeaways

  • Contractual Mandates Accrue Immediately: An expense provision mandated by a binding government commercial contract is not a contingent or imaginary future liability; it represents a current business obligation that accrues alongside production.

  • Ascertained vs. Unascertained Liabilities: For MAT computations under Section 115JB, the revenue cannot arbitrarily brand contractually enforced provisions as “unascertained” simply because the physical payout happens at a later date.

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Vedanta Ltd.
v.
Assistant Director of Income-tax, (International Taxation)*
Dr. G. Jayachandran and R. SAKTHIVEL, JJ.
T.C.A. Nos. 96, 97, 456 & 457 of 2013†
JUNE  2, 2026
Srinath Sridevan, Sr. Adv., Gayathri, Hredai, Thivakkaran Rajagopalan, Sankar, Ms. M.V. Swaroop and B. Devadharshini, Advs. for the Appellant. B. Ramana Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel and Avinash Krishnan Ravi, Jr. Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT
Dr. G. Jayachandran, J. – The Appeals and cross appeals are filed by the assessee and the revenue being aggrieved by the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in the batch of appeals in respect of the assessee returns filed for the AY 2002-2003 and 2004-2005.
(i) T.C.A.No.96 of 2013 under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench “C”, dated 22.08.2012 in I.T.A.No.207/Mds/2012 for the AY 2002-2003 and T.C.A.No.97 of 2013 under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench-“C”, dated 22.08.2012 in I.T.A.No.208/Mds/2012 for the AY 2004-05, are the appeals by the assessee.
(ii) T.C.A.No.456 of 2013 under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “C” Bench, dated 22.08.2012 in I.T.A.No.327/Mds/2012 for the AY 2002-2003 and the T.C.A.No.457 of 2013 filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “C” Bench, dated 22.08.2012 in I.T.A.No.328/Mds/2012 for the year 2004-2005, are by the Revenue.
2. The cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue in respect of the assessment years 2002-03 and 2004-05 were disposed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) vide common order dated 22/08/2012. It partly allowed the appeals filed by the Revenue through common order. Being aggrieved, the assessee in T.C. (A).No.96 of 2010 and T.C.(A).No.97 of 2010 and the revenue in T.C.(A).No.456 of 2010 and T.C.(A).No.457 of 2010 are before us by way of respective appeals.
3. The company “Cairn Energy India Pvt. Limited (CEIL)” is a nonresident Company incorporated in New South Wales, Australia and engaged in prospecting and production of mineral oil and in some cases, gas also, in India its Project Office located at Chennai. The said Company is wholly owned subsidiary of Cairn Energy Asia Limited (CEAL), which is a company incorporated and registered in Australia.
4. The Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee’s claim in respect of provision for the site restoration amount to a tune of Rs.6,84,14,348/- for the Assessment Year 2002-03 and Rs.6,82,24,247/- for the Assessment Year 2004-05. This is the subject matter in these batch of appeals.
5. The ITAT, following its order passed in the case of the same assessee, the cross-appeals by the assessee-company and the Revenue, were disposed of by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in “C” Bench, Chennai, by common order, dated 22.08.2012. Being aggrieved, the assessee-Company has filed T.C.A.Nos.96 and 97 of 2013 in respect of the respective assessment year 2002-2003 and 2004-2005. The Revenue has filed appeals in T.C.A.No.456 of 2013 for the assessment year 20022003 and T.C.A.No.457 of 2013 for the assessment year 2004-2005.
6. Considering the grounds of appeals, the appeals were admitted framing the following substantial questions of law:-
(i) T.C.A.Nos.96 and 97 of 2013 were admitted on 22.02.2013 on the following substantial questions of law:
(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant that the amount of Rs.6,82,24,247/-debited in the profit and loss account towards provision for site restoration cost was not an allowable deduction under the Act ?
(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances and correct interpretation of provisions contained in Section 37(1) of the Act read with Section 42 of the Act, the sum of Rs.6,82,24,247/- representing provision for site restoration cost is an eligible business deduction, while computing the income of the appellant Company?
(iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant, the Tribunal has correctly disposed of the instant appeal, particularly when it has not given any reasons for disallowing the deduction for site restoration costs under normal computation?
(iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, could it not be held that the deduction claimed as aforesaid represented an ascertained liability and allowable deduction on the basis of principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT, reported in [1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC)and Bharath Earth Movers Ltd. v. CIT, reported in (SC)/[2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC) ?
(ii) T.C.A.Nos.456 and 457 of 2013 were admitted by this Court on 30.10.2013 on the following substantial questions of law:
(i) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provision for site restoration expenses could not be added back by way of adjustment treating it as an un-ascertained liability in computation of book profits under Section 115-JB, even though the dis-allowance of the claim under normal computation has been upheld ?
(ii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provision for site restoration expenses debited by the assessee to its profit and loss account is not an un-ascertained liability?
7. The common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 22.08.2012, impugned in this batch of appeals, stems out of the following facts:
The assessee was engaged in exploration of petroleum, pursuant to the joint venture agreement, dated 28.10.1994, entered into between the consortium of private companies, with Government of India and ONGC, and while filing the Return of their income for the assessment year 2002-2003, the assessee-Company claimed deduction in respect of the provision for “site restoration” to the tune of Rs.6,84,14,348/- and for the assessment year 2004-2005 under the same head being the sum of Rs.6,82,24,247/-. The said amount was debited under the head “operating expenses” in the Profit and Loss Account. The provision made for site restoration is to be incurred in future, for restoration of the site, after completion of extracting the natural resources.
8. The claim of the assessee-Company is that its site restoration expenditure is ascertainable and they are entitled to claim deduction, in view of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT 245 ITR 428 (SC).
9. Their claim was declined by the assessing officer by observing that the assessee has not incurred any expenditure towards site restoration during the period relevant under the assessment. It is only the provision made for future liability, which is not ascertainable.
10. On appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal, following its earlier consolidated order, dated 04.06.2010 in respect of the previous assessment years of the same assessee, dismissed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the pendency of the further appeal, i.e., in T.C.A.No.1299 to 1301 of 2010 filed by the assessees before the High Court, is not an impediment to dispose of the appeals against the assessee-Company.
11. It is pertinent to note that this Court, considering the assessee’s appeal preferred against the earlier order of the Tribunal, referred and relied in the order impugned in the present appeals allowed those appeal in favour of the assessee. (T.C.A.Nos.1299 to 1301 of 2010 order even dated 04.06.2010). Therefore, the present appeals filed by the assessee, which are the subject matter of T.C.A.Nos.96 and 97 of 2013, for the subsequent years 2002-2003 and 2004-2005, has to be allowed and accordingly, T.C.A.Nos.96 and 97 of 2013 are allowed.
12. Insofar as the appeal filed by the Revenue in T.C.A.Nos.456 and 457 of 2013, the issue as to whether the observation of the Tribunal that the provision made for the “site restoration expenses”, is concerned, the same is ascertainable, but cannot be claimed under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, but only under Section 115-A and Section 115-J, are already covered by the judgment of this Court in respect of the same assessee for the previous assessment year in T.C.A.Nos.1483 to 1485 of 2010. In that appeal, we have answered the substantial questions of law summarised as under:
“While Section 33-ABA of the Act is incentive in nature and pre-deposit is required to claim the benefit of the incentive, it is optional to the assessee to claim the said incentive. Whereas, the “site restoration” is a mandatory requirement under the contract and for such expenditure, the assessee is eligible to claim deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act, it being the residuary clause, besides explicit deductions provided under the Act”.
13. Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, upholding the Assessment Order of dis-allowance claimed by the assessee in respect of the site restoration, has to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside.
14. In the result,
(i) T.C.A.Nos.96 and 97 of 2013 filed by the assessee-Company, are allowed.
(ii) T.C.A.Nos.456 and 457 of 2013 filed by the Revenue, stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
]]>