What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The Revenue filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2009-10. During the hearing, the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal should be accepted.

DCIT vs Icici Bank Ltd | s.250 | ITAT Mumbai 2024

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/w, Ms. Shruti Jindal

For Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma

The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order dated 21/05/2015, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–56, Mumbai, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2009–10.

During the hearing, at the outset, the learned Departmental Representative placed on record a letter dated 01/01/2024 by the DCIT, Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai, seeking permission to withdraw the present appeal on the basis that it is a duplicate appeal, which has been inadvertently filed by the ICICI Bank Ltd. ITA no.4616/Mum./2015 Revenue and another appeal, being ITA No. 1550/Mum./2016, against the same impugned order is pending consideration before the Tribunal.

In view of the above, we accept the request of the Revenue to withdraw the present appeal.

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12/02/2024

DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments