BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4959/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 January 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The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with a condition. The assessee retains the right to revive the appeal if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A) order for AY 2011-12. 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?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(3)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Aggarwal, A.R
For Respondent: Shri. Sushil Kumar Mishra, D.R
Hearing: 07/01/2021Pronounced: 07/01/2021

ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)- 55, Mumbai dated 28.02.2017, which in turn arises from the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

When this appeal was called for hearing, the ld. Authorised representative (for short “A.R”) for the assessee submitted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) and is awaiting for a final resolution of the matter under the said scheme. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that upon completion of the necessary formalities the assessee will withdraw the appeal. In response to a suggestion from the bench, he fairly accepted that he has no objection to the appeal being dismissed as withdrawn as long as his right for revival of the appeal are protected, in the event, if for some unforeseen reason the matter is not settled under the Vivad e Vishwas scheme.

3.

The ld. D.R also did not object to the course so suggested.

2 Baker Hughes Oilfield Services India P. Ltd Vs. ACIT, 9(2)(1).

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →