NISHTA MALL MANAGEMENT CO P LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT WARD 10(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2343/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 March 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The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. A rider was added allowing restoration if the settlement fails.

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, to settle the matter and received a certificate from the designated authority.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be withdrawn due to settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The primary issue is the procedural consequence of opting for the settlement scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI

For Appellant: Ms. Namrata, A.R
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)-17, 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 28.10.2015 for assessment year 2013-14.

2.

The assessee has filed a letter on 15th 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 It is stated by the assessee that in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts the captioned appeal may allowed to be withdrawn.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 Nishta Mall Management Co. P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Ward-10(3)(1)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →