ORACLE AMERICA INC.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1923/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 February 2021AY 2013-142 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for the assessment year 2013-14. Subsequently, the assessee 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Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5(1) of The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.K.PANDA & SHRI K.N.CHARY

Hearing: 25.02.2021Pronounced: 25.02.2021

This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 is directed against the order of Assessing Officer, New Delhi dated 31.01.2017.

2.

The learned counsel for the assessee, vide its letter dated 19.02.2021, received through 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 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In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.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 25th February, 2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →