M/S DAKSHINA KANNADA KOOTA BRAHMANARA MITRA MANDALI,BANGALORE vs. DDIT, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1345/BANG/2015Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 February 2021AY 2011-122 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 the assessee's submission regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Act application. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT against the CIT(A)'s order. During the hearing, the assessee informed the tribunal that they had filed an application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The assessee requested the appeal be treated as withdrawn.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be withdrawn by the assessee after opting for dispute resolution under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE

Before: Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM

Hearing: 24.02.2021

O R D E R

Per George George K, JM :

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 16.09.2015. The relevant assessment year is 2011-2012.

2.

At the time of hearing before us, it was noticed that the learned AR vide letter dated 20th February, 2021 had stated that the assessee has filed application to resolve the dispute raised in this appeal under the provisions of Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and prayed that the appeal may be treated as withdrawn. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee as withdrawn.

M/s.Dakshina Kannada Koota Brahmanara Mitra Mandali.

3.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced on this 24th day of February, 2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →