UTV SOFTWARE COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD, 16(1), MUMBAI
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 noted that the Ld. DR did not object to the withdrawal request. The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
What were the facts?
The appellant company filed an appeal for AY 2020-21. The appellant submitted a letter stating they opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (VSVS) and wished to withdraw the appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal can be withdrawn by the appellant under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “J” Bench, Mumbai.
Before: Shri Rahul Chaudhary (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM)
Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- The appeal was filed by the appellant company for the A.Y. 2020-21 and the case was posted for hearing. A letter dated 27.5.2025 was submitted by the Ld. AR of appellant stating that they have opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (VSVS). Accordingly, Form No. 1 filed by the appellant company and a certificate in Form No. 2 dated 22.5.2025 issued by the Income Tax Department to the appellant under section 92(1) of the I.T. Act of VSVS was also submitted alongwith the above mentioned letter. In view of the same, the appellant company wishes to submit before the Bench that the captioned appeal shall be deemed to be withdrawn from the date of issuance of Form No. 2 i.e., 22.5.2025. Accordingly, it was requested that they may be permitted to withdraw the appeal and pass a consequential order considering the said appeal as withdrawn.
Ld. DR did not object to the submission of the Ld. AR.
After hearing Ld. DR and perusing the letter and enclosure filed by the appellant before the Bench, it is decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
2 UTV Software Communications Private Limited The appellant company has liberty to reinstate the appeal in the case process under VSVS is not complied with as per rules.
The appeal of the appellant is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/06/2025.
More judgments on Section 92(1)
- Vodafone West Limited, (Formerly Known As… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), AhmedabadITA 671/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11
- The Dy CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs Vodafone West Limited, AhmedabadITA 1634/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11
- 3M India Limited, Bangalore vs DCIT, BangaloreITA 168/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed11 Sept 2025AY 2011-12
- Quintiles Inc., Mumbai vs DCIT (It) Cir 3(3)(1), MumbaiITA 728/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2025AY 2013-14
- Quintiles Inc., Mumbai vs DCIT (Intl. Tax) Range 3(3)(1), MumbaiITA 2104/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2025AY 2012-13
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
