M/s.Daftri Agro

PDF · subscribers
ITTA/46/2012HC TelanganaHBHC01040284201220 July 2021Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the dispute resolution under the Vivad se Vishwas Act was not satisfactory.

What were the facts?

The appellant sought to withdraw the appeal before the High Court. This was due to an application made under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, which had been approved.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal due to settlement under a different act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 46 oF 2012 (lncome Tax Appelate Tribunat under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 196'1 against the order of the rncome Tax Appeilate Tribunar, Hyderabad Bench ,,8,, Hvderabad in rrA No. 293 r Hyd / 06 for assessment year 2002-2003 dated 03-09- 2010 preferred against the order of the commissioner of rncome Tax ( Appears ) - V Hyderabad, in ITA No. OO24t TTO W-2 MBNR /CIT ( A ) _ Vi 2005-06 dated 05-01-2006 preferred against the order of the lncome Tax officer, ward _2, fVlahabubnagar. Dated 28-03-2005 in pAN/ GIR No. D _ 323. Between: M/s.Daftri Agro, 9117 S,Station Road, Mahabubnagar AND ...APPELLANT lTO, Ward-2, Mahabubnagar ,..RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appettant: SRt A. V. KRISHNA KOUNDtNyA Counsel for the Respondent: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER

I.T.T.A. No.46of 2012 .IIiDGMENTi (Per SriJusricc M s Ramachqndra Rqo) The counsel fbr appeilant has filed a letter dt'16'07 '2021 seeking to withdraw the Appeal stating that the appellant has made an application to the Centrai Board of Direct Taxes under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Ac:,2020, and that Form - 3 had b<:en issued by the designated authority approving the application made by the assessee' 2. Having regard to the said submission' the appellant is permitted to withdraw the appeal with iiberty to revive it in the lvent there is no satisfactory resolution of the dispute between the part es under the said AND Act. Granting liberty as sought, the Appeai is dismissed as withdrawn' No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscelianeous petitions pending if rrny in this Appeal' //TRUE COPY// SDL M. SANTHI VARDHANI JOINT REGISTRAR L1o ": SECTION OFFICER kul tp To 1. The lncome Tax Appellant Tribunal' Hyderabad. Bench "B"' Hyderabad' i. ii]; U;;i.iion"i br rncomef i tnpbeals)-v' Hvderabad ; iil; i";;;: tax officer, ward -2' Mahabubnasar' ;. d"., iCil"sri' n. V. r<'idrtnu ro'nainva' Advocate [oPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies 6. One SPare CoPY .\y HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M'S' RAMACTIAI{DRA RAO IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T' VINOD KIUMAR -1, 4. shall stand closed. \

HIGH COURT DATED: 2010712021 ORDER ITTA.No.46 of 2012 DISMISSING THE APPEAL AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS q , 2\ STATE O lt '!\ i' 'i u\]s'i$11 C f) tI + 'n* (. \

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →