PRAYAGDHAM TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEM.) -2(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3470/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 October 2019AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Prayagdham Trust, sought permission to withdraw its appeals against the orders of the CIT(A). The reasons cited were a misconception regarding carry forward of unabsorbed losses and the small amount involved in the issue of non-allowability of standard deduction.

What were the issues?

The assessee sought withdrawal due to a misconception about unabsorbed losses and the small quantum of the issue regarding standard deduction on house property income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 24(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson, CIT D.R
Hearing: 03.10.2019Pronounced: 07.10.2019

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM

1.

The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the CIT(A)-1, Mumbai, dated 21.03.2018 for A.Y. 2012-13, A.Y. 2013-14 and A.Y. 2014-15, which in turn arises from the respective assessments framed for the aforementioned years under Sec. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’).

2.

At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal, the ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘A.R’) for the assessee had sought the permission of the Tribunal for withdrawal of the aforesaid appeals. The ld. A.R had placed on record letters dated 30.09.2019, wherein the assessee had sought leave of the Tribunal for withdrawing the captioned appeals. 3. On a perusal of the aforesaid letters, it appears that the assessee seeks to withdraw the captioned appeals for two reasons, viz. (i) the filing of the appeals was backed by a misconception as regards the order of the CIT(A) pertaining to the entitlement of the assessee

More judgments on Section 24(a)

All 318 judgments and leading authorities on Section 24(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →