ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6395/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 September 2021AY 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 noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeal was rendered infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the AO. Subsequently, the assessee filed an application under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, and submitted the necessary forms.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is maintainable when the assessee has opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(13)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Sh. Kul BharatDr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Saloni Shital, AR
Hearing: 28.09.2021Pronounced: 28.09.2021

Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 04.11.2016 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

At the outset, it was brought to the notice of bench by the ld. AR that the assessee has filed application under the “Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act 2020” and has already submitted Form 1 & 2 and Form 3 have been issued by the designated authority.

3.

Keeping in view the exercise of option by the assessee to opt for the scheme, the appeal of the assessee is being dismissed as infructuous.

2 Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 28/09/2021.

More judgments on Section 144C(13)

All 3,426 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(13) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →