M/S BHUTORIA VALVE UDYOG LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WAD-8(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 271/KOL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 November 2022AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The authorized representative of the assessee subsequently filed a letter seeking permission to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the assessee should be allowed to withdraw their appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 19.09.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 15, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. At the outset, the authorized representative of the assessee has filed a letter dated 23.11.2022 seeking permission of the Bench to withdraw this appeal filed by the assessee. Since the ld. DR has no objection in this regard, the permission as sought by the assessee is granted and this appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Bhutoria Valve Udyog Ltd 3. In the result, the captioned appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Kolkata, the 24th November, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- [�गर�श अ�वाल /Girish Agrawal] [संजय गग� /Sanjay Garg] लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य/Judicial Member Dated: 24.11.2022. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. M/s Bhutoria Valve Udyog Ltd 2. ITO, Ward-8(1), Kolkata 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →