AHUJA PROPMART P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2543/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 August 2021AY 2010-112 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee later requested to withdraw the appeal as they opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal can be withdrawn by the assessee due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Mr. Arpit Gupta, CA
For Respondent: Mr. M. Barnwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 31.08.2021Pronounced: 31.08.2021

ORDER PER G.S.PANNU, VP:

This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-1, New Delhi dated 15.01.2019.

2.

The learned counsel for the assessee, vide dated 23.08.2021 has requested for withdrawal of the appeal filed by the assessee and stated that the assessee has opted to settle the dispute relating to the tax arrears for the Ahuja Propmart P. Ltd. Vs. ITO assessment year under consideration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. A certificate to this effect under Section 5(1) of The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 has also been filed.

3.

Learned Senior DR has no objection.

4.

In view of the above, we accept the request of the assessee for withdrawal of the appeal.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

Above decision was announced on conclusion of Virtual Hearing in the presence of both the parties on 31st August, 2021.

More judgments on Section 5(1)

All 1,811 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →