MESERS HOTEL SAPHHIRE,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD-1(1), BATHINDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 289/ASR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 September 2021AY 2014-152 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for assessment year 2014-15. The assessee subsequently opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal can be withdrawn by the assessee due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.

Before: SH. LALIET KUMAR & DR. M. L. MEENA

Hearing: 21.09.2021Pronounced: 22.09.2021

ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM:

This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-15 is directed against the order of Ld. Pr. CIT, dated 20.03.2018.

2.

At the outset, the ld. AR of the assessee has requested for withdrawal of this appeal filed by assessee, as the assessee has opted to settle the dispute relating to the tax arrears for the assessment year under consideration under the ”Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020”. A certificate to this effect under Section 5(1) of The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 has also been filed.

3.

Learned CIT DR has no objection.

4.

In view of the above, we accept the request of the assessee for withdrawal of the appeal.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.09.2021 Sd/- Sd/- (Laliet Kumar) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T.

More judgments on Section 5(1)

All 1,811 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →