PEHAL VIKAS SAMITI,JALAUN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E), LUCKNOW

PDF · subscribers
ITA 549/LKW/2019Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 May 2022AY 2019-202 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and the lack of objection from the Department. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the CIT (Exemption). The assessee subsequently filed an application to withdraw the appeal. The assessee wished to withdraw the appeal as they intended to file a fresh application for registration.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee can withdraw their appeal against an order passed by the CIT (Exemption) to file a fresh application for registration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AA(1)(b)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI. A. D. JAIN & SHRI T. S. KAPOOR

For Respondent: Smt. Sheela Chopra, CIT (DR)

PER A.D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT (Exemption), Lucknow, dated 29.7.2019 passed under section 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The President of the Assessee-Society, Shri Mohinder Kumar has moved an application dated 5.4.2022, received by the Registry of this office on 11.4.2022, for withdrawal of the appeal, stating therein that since the Assessee-Society has decided to file fresh application for registration, the assessee wants to withdraw the appeal filed before the Tribunal. The ld. D.R. has no objection to such request. In the light of the request of the assessee, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/05/2022.

More judgments on Section 12AA(1)(b)(ii)

All 94 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AA(1)(b)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →