GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORPORATION,GURGAON vs. D.D.I.T.(I.T.)-3(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that the assessee can seek revival of the appeal if the matter is not settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2008-09. The assessee had filed a declaration under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, and was awaiting resolution.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the pendency of the appeal due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI ‘I’ BENCH, MUMBAI
This appeal, filed by the assessee, calls into question the correctness of the order dated 14th February 2012, passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-15, Mumbai in the matter of assessment u/s.144C(3) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2008-09.
When this appeal was called out for hearing, the ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that he has filed the necessary declaration under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) and is awaiting for final resolution of the matter under the said scheme. He submitted that upon completion of the necessary formalities, he will withdraw the appeal. In Page 2 of 3 response to the suggestion from the Bench, he fairly accepted that he has no objection to the appeal being dismissed as withdrawn as long as his right for revival of the appeal are protected, in the event of, for some unforeseen reason, the matter being not settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The ld. DR also did not object to course so suggested.
In view of the above, we dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, subject to be rider that in the unlikely event of matter not being resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, the assessee shall have liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration of his appeal.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn – subject to the observation above. Pronounced in the open court today on the 14 January, 2021.
More judgments on Section 144C(3)
- Radhakishan Potharajula, Karim Nagar vs ITO (Int Taxn)-2, HyderabadITA 2340/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Neha Hiranand Motwani, Nashik vs ITO International Tax, NashikITA 1570/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- ACIT-Circle 6(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7767/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- ACIT-Circle6(1)(1) Mumbai., Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7766/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Atc Tires Private Limited, Mumbai vs The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 6468/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026