TRIDENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CPC- TDS, GHAZIABAD
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 consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
What were the facts?
The assessee opted to settle tax arrears for multiple assessment years under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. The necessary declaration under Section 4 of the Act was filed.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeals should be dismissed as the assessee has opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA
PER BENCH:
The above appeals are a part of batch of appeals in which information has been received that the assessee has opted to settle the dispute relating to the arrears of tax for the captioned assessment years under consideration under The Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. It has been stated that the necessary declaration in accordance with Section 4 of The Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 has been filed by the assessee. 2.0 Duly Considering the fact that the assessee has filed the necessary declaration in accordance with section 4 of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. we consign the captioned appeals to the records and treat the same as dismissed. 3.0 However, the aforesaid is subject to a caveat that in case the dispute relating to the arrears of demand for the captioned assessment years is not ultimately resolved in terms of the aforesaid Act, the assessee shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of the appeal and the Tribunal shall consider such application appropriately as per law. 4.0 The Revenue has no objection with regard to the aforesaid caveat.
More judgments on Section 4
- Prakash Dayaram Chandnani, Rajkot vs ITO Ward 2(1)(1), RajkotITA 927/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Hiteshkumar Mohanlal Desai, Daman vs The Assessment Unit, ITO, Daman Ward, DamanITA 962/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Hiteshkumar Mohanlal Desai, Daman vs The Assessment Unit, ITO, Daman Ward, DamanITA 962/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Ratilal Manubhai Dhanani, Amreli vs ITO WD 3(1)(4), AmreliITA 697/RJT/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Ratilal Manubhai Dhanani, Amreli vs ITO WD 3(1)(4), AmreliITA 697/RJT/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
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