What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order confirming the disallowance of bad debts. The assessee subsequently opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, to settle the dispute.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal can be withdrawn by the assessee due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.

Neerja Arvind Parikh vs DCIT | ITAT Mumbai 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Shri Kunal Pandey (AR)

For Respondent: Shri Sunil S. Deshpande (DR)

Hearing: 31/12/2020Pronounced: 31/12/2020

O R D E R

PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM

The Appellant/assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 29.01.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8 (for short ‘the CIT(A), Mumbai, for the assessment year 2014-15, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’).

The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) on the following effective ground:-

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the Hon’ble CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of bad debts of Rs. 2,33,64,533. The appellant prays that the disallowance may please be held as bad in law and be deleted.

Assessment Year: 2014-15

NEERJA ARVIND PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3 (3)(2), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments