M/S. BALANCE EQUITY BROKING (INDIA) PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1)(1), MUMBAI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the grounds no longer survived due to the relief granted by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) concerning assessment under section 147 read with section 143(3) for AY 2010-11. The assessee later submitted that the Assessing Officer had given the desired relief as per the CIT(A)'s directions.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal needs to be adjudicated when the assessee has already received the relief sought, rendering the grounds infructuous.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANJAY ARORA & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY
26.02.2020 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement 26.02.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM:
This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, Mumbai ( ‘CIT(A)’) dated 21.9.2018, partly allowing the assessee’s appeal contesting its’ assessment u/s. 147 r/w s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 29.9.2016 for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. M/s. Balance Equity Broking (Ind) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai.
At the very outset, it was submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee, Sh. Phadke, that the assessee having been allowed the desired relief by virtue of the appeal-effect giving order dated 17.12.2018 by the Assessing Officer (AO), i.e., pursuant to the direction by the ld. CIT(A), the grounds of the instant appeal survive no longer. The same may therefore be permitted to be withdrawn, also placing his request dated 25.02.2020 toward the same on record. The ld. Sr. DR, Ms. Koushik conveys no objection to the same. Under the circumstances, we have no hesitation in permitting the assessee to withdraw its’ appeal. We decide accordingly.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026