What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as it had become infructuous.

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order disallowing branding/marketing expenses and depreciation. The assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is maintainable after opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

Sunsolar Renewable Energy Pvt Ltd. vs DCIT | ITAT Mumbai 2022

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

For Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, D.R

Hearing: 14.02.2022Pronounced: 14.02.2022

Per Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member:

The Appellant, M/s. Sunsolar Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd.

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 23.04.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] for A.Y. 2015-16 on the grounds inter alia that:-

2 M/s. Sunsolar Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in sustaining the order of the assessing officer disallowing Rs.14,59,562/- on account of branding/marketing expenses. 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in disallowing depreciation of Rs.2,93,918/-”

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, the Ld. D.R., at the outset, brought to our notice that the assessee has opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and has brought on record form No.3 issued by the revenue authorities.

In view of the matter, the present appeal of the assessee is dismissed having been become infructuous.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14.02.2022.

SUNSOLAR RENEWABLE ENERGY PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments