CCPL DEVELOPERS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 504/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 February 2021AY 2014-153 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for the assessment year 2014-15. Subsequently, the assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they opted to settle the tax arrears 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Whether the appeal can be withdrawn by the assessee due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 ‘C’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU & SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY

Hearing: 10.02.2021Pronounced: 10.02.2021

PER G.S. PANNU, VP :

This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-15 is directed against the order of Learned CIT(A)-2, New Delhi.

2.

The assessee’s Director vide his letter dated 30.1.2021 has requested for withdrawal of the appeal filed by the assessee and stated that the 2 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 aforesaid appeal.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Above decision was announced in the presence of both the parties on conclusion of Virtual Hearing on 10th February, 2021. (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) VICE PRESIDENT SRB

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 →