SH. ANKIT SOMANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 986/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 December 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the assessment order. Subsequently, the assessee filed an application to withdraw the appeal, intending to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.

What were the facts?

The assessee-appellant challenged an order dated 31/05/2024, which upheld the assessment order dated 26.09.2021 for AY 2013-14. The Assessing Officer had added Rs. 15,15,027/- under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing bogus long-term capital gains from an investment in a paper company.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal can be dismissed as withdrawn in light of the assessee opting to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR

Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM

Hearing: 2/12/2024Pronounced: 2/12/2024

आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant-Sh. Ankit Somani. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-6(3), Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT. 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 986/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

(3)

Ankit Somani v. ITO, Ward-6(3), Jaipur

(3)

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →