SMT. LAXMIBEN KAKADIA,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 19 (2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5947/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 June 2021AY 2006-072 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 noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and received acknowledgement. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as per the assessee's request.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee later submitted a declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, and requested to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Respondent: Mr. Brajendra Kumar, DR
Hearing: 14/06/2021Pronounced: 14/06/2021

ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai [in short ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2010-11 dated 25.03.2015 and arises out of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (in short the Act).

2.

At the outset, when the appeal was called out for hearing, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of calls. Vide letter dated 13.05.2021, assessee submitted that it has filed the necessary declaration under Direct Tax

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →