What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's representative had no objection to the withdrawal application. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2010-11. The Revenue later filed an application to withdraw the present appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn based on their application.

ITO vs Deistinctive Realty P.Ltd | ITAT Mumbai 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: S/SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & S/SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

Hearing: 06.11.2019Pronounced: 06.11.2019

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order dated 29.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 6 Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”]. Relevant to the A.Y.20110-11. 2. The revenue has moved an application to withdraw the present appeal to which the learned Representative of the assessee has no objection. Therefore, in view of the said circumstances the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open court on 06/11/2019 (AMARJIT SINGH) (RAJESH KUMAR) लेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यायिक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; यदनाुंक Dated : 06/11/2019 VIJAY/ Sr. PS A.Y. 2010-11 आदेश की प्रनिनलनप अग्रेनर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आिकर आिुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- आिकर आिुक्त / CIT 4. 5. यवभागीि प्रयतयनयि, आिकर अपीलीि अयिकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER, सत्यायपत प्रयत //// उप/सहधयक पंजीकधर (Dy./Asstt.

ITO 3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. DEISTINCTIVE REALTY P.LTD, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments