SATISH AJMERA,C-SCHEME JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE 7, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 313/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 September 2026AY 2017-182 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal considered the assessee's application and representation. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an assessment order passed under Section 147. The assessee later applied for withdrawal of the appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prakash

PER : PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 24.12.2025 who had dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the Assessment Order dated 31.05.2023 passed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the Assessment year 2017-18. Satish Ajmer

2.

The assessee has filed an application dated 27.08.2026 before us for the withdrawal of the instant appeal submitting that he has opted for the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme - 2024. 3. Considering the application submitted before us and the representation made by t

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →