M/S. GODWIN RESORT & HOTEL PVT. LTD.,MEERUT vs. DCIT, MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1183/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 July 2021AY 2012-132 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 accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The respondent CIT(DR) had no objection to the withdrawal.

What were the facts?

The assessee requested to withdraw its appeal for assessment year 2013-14. The reason for withdrawal was that the assessee had opted to settle the tax dispute under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'. A certificate under the scheme was also filed.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee can withdraw its appeal to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The procedural aspect of withdrawing an appeal before the tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’ NEW DLEHI

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY

For Respondent: Ms. Anima, Sr. DR
Hearing: 28/07/2021

PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M. This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IV, Kanpur dated 12.01.2017.

2.

During the course of hearing on virtual mode, the assessee, vide its letter dated nil received Email has requested for withdrawal of the appeal filed by him and stated that the assessee has opted to settle the dispute relating to the tax arrears for the 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 CIT/DR has no objection.

4.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →