M/S. JADE CONSUMER PRODUCTS(I) PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(2)(1), MUMBAI
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The Tribunal allowed the appeal to be withdrawn as the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the settlement was not finalized.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee had applied for settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal should be withdrawn due to the assessee opting for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI
ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-17, Mumbai, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 28.03.2018 for assessment year 2009-10.
The ld. Authorised Representative (for short “A.R”) for the assessee at the very outset of the hearing of the appeal submitted that as the assessee had filed an application under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 in order to settle the aforesaid matter pending before the Tribunal, therefore, as instructed, the captioned appeal may be allowed to be withdrawn.
The ld. D.R did not controvert the aforesaid factual position as was canvassed before us.
In view of the above, we dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, subject to a rider that in the unlikely event of the matter not being resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme the assessee shall have liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration of its appeal. 5. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn subject to the observation recorded hereinabove. Order pronounced in the open court on 17/06/2021.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026