DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3853/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 December 2020AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryDisposed of

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal disposed of both departmental appeals. This was done based on the assessee's submission regarding the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, subject to the issuance of Form No. 3.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed two appeals against orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2008-2009 and 1996-1997. The assessee had filed applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the pendency of applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and its impact on the pending departmental appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not applicable

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

Hearing: 14.12.2020Pronounced: 14.12.2020

2 ITA.Nos.3853 & 3614/Del./2013 M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd., New Delhi. ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.

Both the appeals by Revenue are directed against different Orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-XII, New Delhi, Dated 15.03.2013 and Ld. CIT(A)-XXV, New Delhi, Dated 19.03.2013, for the A.Ys. 2008-2009 and 1996-1997 respectively.

2.

Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that assessee has filed applications under VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME, 2020 in respect of the above Departmental Appeals and Form No.3 in both the Departmental Appeals is awaited.

3.

In view of the above statement of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee, both the Departmental Appeals are disposed of accordingly, subject to issue of Form No.3 in favour of the assessee for both the Departmental Appeals.

4.

In the result, appeals of the Department are disposed of.

3 ITA.Nos.3853 & 3614/Del./2013 M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd., New Delhi. Order pronounced in the open Court.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →