DY.COMMISSIONER, MUMBAI vs. LALIT TARACHAND THAKKAR, MULUND WEST, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1210/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 January 2025AY 2021-22Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Judicial Member), Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ( (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the proof of tax payment under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and the settlement order. Consequently, the appellant's cross-objection was dismissed, and the Department's appeal was rendered infructuous and dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appellant sought to withdraw the appeal, having availed the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. Proof of tax payment and a settlement order from PCIT, Mumbai were submitted.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal could be withdrawn or dismissed as infructuous after availing the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and settlement of dues.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 92(2),Section 93

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “A” Bench, Mumbai.

Before: Smt. Beena Pillai (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM)

For Appellant: Dr. K. R. Subhash
Pronounced: 29/01/2025
2.

After perusing the Form No. 4 dated 31.12.2024 which is the proof of payment of tax, for availing VSV Scheme, it is observed that the disputed taxes were paid and Ld. PCIT, Mumbai had issued an order for full and final settlement of tax arrears under section 92(2) r.w.s. 93 of Finance Act (No. 2) Act 2024.

3.

Hence, the appellant’s cross objection is dismissed and appeal of the Department becomes infructuous and dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 29/01/2025.

More judgments on Section 92(2)

All 32 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →