CLITORIA VANIJYA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT-1, KOLKATA
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and paid the due taxes. As there was no objection from the revenue, the tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act. During the hearing, the assessee informed the tribunal that they had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had fulfilled all the necessary compliances.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal should be continued when the assessee has opted for and complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJPL YADAV & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
O R D E R
PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT-1, Kolkata dated 11.03.2013 for A.Y. 2008-09 passed u/s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Shri Chirag Desai, AR appeared for the assessee and Smt. Ranu Biswas, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
At the time of hearing Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee has opted for Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 (hereinafter, the ‘scheme’) and had filed Form no. 1 and Form no. 2 before the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority had accepted it and had issued Form-3. Thereafter the assessee has remitted the tax as per Form 3 and filed form no. 4 and is expecting Form 5 from the competent authority. Since the assessee-respondent
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026