EROS GRAND RESORTS AND HOTELS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 128/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 February 2021AY 2015-162 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 appeals. The Senior DR had no objection to this request.

What were the facts?

The assessee requested withdrawal of their appeals for assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17. This was due to opting for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the assessee's appeals could be withdrawn based on their opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 ‘ C’ NEW DLEHI

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE- & SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY

Hearing: 10/02/2021

PER G.S. PANNU, V.P. These appeals by the assessee for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17 are directed against the orders of Ld. CIT(A)-3, New Delhi dated 22.01.2018 and 21.10.2019.

2.

The learned counsel for the assessee, vide its letter dated 22.01.2021, received through email, has requested for withdrawal of the appeals filed by him and stated that the assessee has opted to settle the dispute relating to the tax arrears for the assessment years under consideration under the “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020”. Certificates to this effect under Section 5(1) of The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 have 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 appeals.

5.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn.

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 →