SRI BHARANI CONSTRUCTIONS,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD-3(2), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 741/BANG/2020Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 June 2021AY 2013-142 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed three appeals challenging an order related to fees charged under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act. The assessee requested to withdraw these appeals during the hearing.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the fee charged under Section 234E. The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals on this matter.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI B. R. BASKARAN & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R., A.R
For Respondent: Shri Sajith Kumar P., D.R
Hearing: 27.04.2021Pronounced: 23.06.2021

PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The assessee has filed these three appeals challenging the common order dated 23.7.2019 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-10, Bengaluru. The issue urged therein relates to fee charged u/s 234E of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short].

2.

At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee seeks to withdraw the appeals and accordingly, prayed that the assessee be granted permission to withdraw the appeals. The Ld. D.R. did not object to the prayer of the assessee.

3.

Accordingly, we allow the assessee to withdraw these three appeals.

4.

In the result, all the three appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd June, 2021

More judgments on Section 234E

All 4,792 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234E →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →