NITIN INVOFIN TRADE P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NEW DELHI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the appeal had become infructuous due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
What were the facts?
The assessee opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and obtained Form-5. The appeal had become infructuous due to this settlement.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal has become infructuous due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and consequently needs to be dismissed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI
ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM: (A) This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of Learned
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Delhi [Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 30/05/2019 for Assessment Year 2014-15. Grounds taken in this appeal are as under:
“1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-6, Delhi has grossly erred both in law and, on facts and in law disallowing the Nitin Invofin Trade P. Ltd. vs. ACIT business of Rs.66,22,511/- under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or modify any grounds of appeal on or before at the time of hearing.”
(B) Vide letter dated 12.11.2022, it was intimated that the assessee opted for Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 (“VSVS”, for short) and that the Designated Authority had already issued Form-5 under VSVS. A copy of Form-5 issued by the Designated Authority was also enclosed with the aforesaid letter; and the assessee applied for withdrawal of appeal. The learned Sr. DR for Revenue submitted before us, at the time of hearing, that the appeal has become infructuous in view of the assessee opting for VSVS; and that the appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn. After due consideration and in view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that this appeal has become infructuous on account of aforesaid VSVS, and that this appeal may be treated as withdrawn on account of the aforesaid VSVS. Accordingly, this appeal having become infructuous, is treated as withdrawn and is hereby dismissed.
Nitin Invofin Trade P. Ltd. vs. ACIT (B.1) Before we part, we hereby clarify, by way of abundant caution, that if for some reason the disputes under this appeal before us are not settled under the aforesaid VSVS, then the assessee will be at liberty to approach ITAT for restoration of this appeal in accordance with law.
(C) In the result, this appeal by Revenue is dismissed.
More judgments on Section 37(1)
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Smit Navnitlal Soni, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs ITO Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad, GujaratITA 1434/AHD/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Shobha Sudamrao Tagad, Ahmednagar vs ITO WD-1, AhmednagarITA 311/PUN/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Digjam Limited, Jamnagar vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 349/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 839/IND/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2023-2024
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026