JAYASHREE POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 9, PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against a disallowance of salary cost. However, upon review, it was found that the disallowance did not result in any tax effect due to increased deductions under Sections 80IA and 80IC.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal should be withdrawn when the disallowance has no tax effect and no penalty is leviable.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
ORDER
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 6, Pune [‘CIT(A)’ for short] dated 18.02.2019 for the assessment year 2014-15.
When the matter had come up for hearing, ld. AR for the assessee filed a letter dated 20.05.2022 seeking permission to withdraw the above captioned appeal. The relevant contents of the said letter dated 20.05.2022 are reproduced hereunder :- “In this regard it is respectfully submitted that the Appellant had filed the appeal before Your Honours against the order of the Hon'ble CIT(A) wherein the Hon'ble CIT(A) has allowed all the other grounds claimed by the Appellant apart from the disallowance of 20% of salary cost amounting to Rs. 1,84,40,444/-. The appeal was filed by the Appellant keeping in view penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, subsequently on analysing the matter, it was observed by the Appellant that the addition sustained by the Hon'ble CIT(A) does not result into any tax effect since the deduction allowable u/s. 80IA and 80IC of the Act has also increased to the extent of disallowance upheld by the Hon'ble CIT(A) i.e. Rs. 1,84,40,444/-. In view of the same, no penalty is leviable on the addition so sustained since there is no tax which becomes payable as a result of this disallowance. In view of the fact that there are no adverse implications of the disallowance made and to avoid cost of litigation, the Appellant requests your Honour to kindly allow the Appellant to withdraw the appeal mentioned above, for the kind act of which the Appellant shall be much obliged.”
Considering the above submissions of the ld. AR for the assessee and ld. Sr. DR’s no objection for withdrawal of the present appeal, we hereby grant permission to the assessee to withdraw the present appeal. Accordingly, the above captioned appeal stands dismissed as ‘withdrawn’.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026