M/S CHHATTISGARH STATE BEVEARAGES CORPORATION LTD,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(1), RAIPUR (CG)

PDF · subscribers
ITA 337/BIL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 February 2021AY 2011-122 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2011-12 and 2015-16. The assessee later sought permission to withdraw these appeals.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the appeals could be withdrawn by the assessee due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “RAIPUR” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI S.S. VISHWANETHRA RAVI, JM

For Respondent: Shri Gitesh Kumar
Hearing: 15.02.2021Pronounced: 15.02.2021

आदेश / ORDER

1.

The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Raipur on 01.07.2016 in relation to the assessment year 2011-12 and order dated 06.08.2018 in relation to the assessment year 2015-16.

2.

Before us, the appellant filed a letter dated 25.01.2021 seeking permission to withdraw the appeals on the ground that the issue involved in these appeals stand settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The appellant also filed copies of Form No.3 issued by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur – 1.

3.

On the other hand, the ld. Department Representative had expressed no objection to permit the withdrawal of appeals.

4.

In the circumstances, we hereby grant permission to the appellant to withdraw the appeals. Accordingly, the captioned appeals stand dismissed as withdrawn.

5.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 15th day of February, 2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →