JCB INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1204/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2019AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in view of the MAP settlement and the assessee's request, dismissed both the appeals as withdrawn. The stay application, being consequential, was also dismissed as infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee, JCB India Ltd., filed two appeals before the ITAT. The assessee sought permission to withdraw both appeals in light of a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) settlement. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the assessee should be allowed to withdraw its appeals due to a settlement reached under the MAP. The Tribunal considered the impact of the MAP settlement on the pending appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar Verma, CIT DR
Hearing: 28.05.2019Pronounced: 28.05.2019

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 1204/Del/2017
SA No. 151/Del/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

ORDER PER BENCH

18.01.2017 for AY 2012-13 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the I.T. Act passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-13, New Delhi. Stay Application No. 151/Del/2017 is filed by assessee in ITA No. 1204/Del/2017. by assessee has been directed against the order u/s 154/143/144C of the Act dated 25.05.2017 for AY 2012-13 passed by DCIT, Circle 13(2), New Delhi.

2.

Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that in the light of MAP Settlement, assessee seeks liberty to withdraw both the appeals. The order of the AO dated 02.05.2019 as per MAP is filed on record. Ld. Counsel for assessee also submitted that even before the High Court in other year the appeals have been withdrawn. Ld. Counsel for assessee, therefore, submitted that assessee may be permitted to withdraw both the appeals and stay application is consequential which has become infructuous.

3.

Ld. DR has no objection to withdrawal of both the appeals.

4.

In view of the statement of Ld. Counsel for assessee and that the matter is settled in MAP, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed as withdrawn. The stay application has become infructuous, the same is also dismissed.

5.

In the result, both the appeals and stay application of the assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/05/2019

More judgments on Section 144C

All 3,699 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →