ASHWANI KUMAR,C/O HOTEL MALABAR vs. PROPRIETOR, ITO MANDI

ITA 651/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 September 2026AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a penalty order of Rs. 22,10,252/- levied under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be withdrawn if the assessee has opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA, JM

RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA (Judicial Member)

1.

Aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 26.03.2024 confirming certain penalty of Rs. 22,10,252/- as levied by Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) on 30/08/2022. 2. The Ld. AR, at the outset, sought withdrawal of the appeal on the ground that the assessee has opted for settlement under Vivad Se

Vis

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 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →