SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN SENGAN MANDIR,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD-1, EXEMP, NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 297/NAG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 June 2025AY 2017-18Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR "SMC" BENCH : NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ι.Τ.Α.Νο. 297/NAG/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18) Shri Digamber Jain Sengan Mandir, Behind Balaji Mandir, Ladpura, Nagpur. PAN: AAFTS 7410 M (Appellant) VS. ITO (Exemption), Ward-1, Nagpur. (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Naresh Jakhotai, Ld.CA For Revenue : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld.Sr.DR Date of Hearing: 24.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 24.06.2025 ORDER This appeal has b1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order dated 20/03/2025 passed by the ADDL/JCIT(A), Panaji. The appeal was for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal can be dismissed as withdrawn on the request of the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH : NAGPUR

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

Hearing: 24.06.2025Pronounced: 24.06.2025

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 20/03/2025 impugned herein passed by the ADDL/ JCIT(A), Panaji [in short, “Ld.Commissioner”] u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) for the Assessment Year (for short, “AY”) 2017-18.

2.

The assessee seeks withdrawal of this appeal. Ld. DR has no objection. Thus, the appeal under consideration filed by the assessee stands dismissed as withdrawn.

2 ITA.No. 297/NAG/2025 3. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24.06.2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →