GULSHAN LAMBA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-30(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8317/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 September 2022AY 2013-142 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order confirming the denial of exemption from long-term capital gains. The assessee subsequently filed a letter seeking withdrawal of the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption from long-term capital gains. The primary issue became the assessee's right to withdraw the appeal due to settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. SAKTIJIT DEY & SH. N. K. BILLAIYA

Hearing: 16/09/2022Pronounced: 16/09/2022

Appellant None Respondent Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 16/09/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 16/09/2022 ORDER

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-33, Delhi dated 30.08.2019 for A.Y.2013-14.

2.

The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the denial of exemption from long term capital gains u/s. 54F of the Act. 3. At the very outset the assessee moved a letter dated 31.08.2022 for withdrawal of the appeal as quarrel is settled under the Direct Tax VSVS Act 2020. 4. On such concession the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. Decision announced in the open court on 16.09.2022.

More judgments on Section 54F

All 2,628 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54F →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →