MN VENTURES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 6, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3111/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 September 2021AY 2013-142 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263. During the hearing, the assessee stated they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the assessee is infructuous due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and should be permitted to be withdrawn.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, [ DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI ]

Before: MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, C. A.;
For Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas;
Hearing: 01/09/2021Pronounced: 01/09/2021
1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax–6, New Delhi, under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 31.03.2018 for assessment year 2013-14.

2.

At the time of hearing the assessee vide his application has submitted that he has also filed an appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals) and subsequently opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Accordingly, this appeal becomes infructuous. He has further requested for withdrawal of the appeal. 3. The ld. DR also agreed with the above contentions. 4. We have heard both the parties. Permission is granted to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. (Del) of 2018 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 01/09/2021.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →