NARANG OVERSEAS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2) (1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6150/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 March 2021AY 2012-132 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The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the settlement failed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT. Subsequently, the assessee filed an application under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, and received a settlement certificate.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the withdrawal of the appeal due to settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI RAVISH SOOD

For Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen, D.R
Hearing: 04/03/2021Pronounced: 04/03/2021

ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-10, Mumbai, which in turn arises from the assessment order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 13.03.2015 for assessment year 2012-13.

2.

The assessee has filed a letter dated 11th February, 2021, wherein it is stated that it had filed an application under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 in order to settle the aforesaid matter pending before the Tribunal and has received the certificate under sub-section (1) of Sec. 5 of Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 from the designated authority. In support of its aforesaid claim the assessee had enclosed alongwith its letter ‘Form 3’ issued by the designated authority. It is stated by the assessee that in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts the captioned appeal may allowed to be withdrawn.

3.

The ld. D.R did not controvert the aforesaid factual position as was canvassed before us.

2 Narang Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 5(2)(1)

More judgments on Section 5

All 847 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →