ORISSA FORESTRY SECTOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT(TDS-1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 195/CTK/2016Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 August 2017AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against an order of the CIT(A). During the hearing, the assessee's authorized representative stated that they were not pressing the appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the assessee's appeal should be allowed to be withdrawn.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mohapatara, AR
For Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Hearing: 28/08Pronounced: 28/08

Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-3 Bhubaneswar dated 21.1.2016 for the assessment year 2012-

13.2.

At the time of hearing, ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that he is not pressing the appeal filed before the Tribunal and, accordingly, sought

to withdraw the appeal, to which, ld D.R.had no objection.

3.

In view of above submission of ld A.R. of the assessee, we permit to withdraw the appeal. Asse ssment Year : 20 12- 13

4.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28 /08/2017. (Pavan Kumar Gadale) (N.S Saini) JUDICIALMEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 28/08/2017 B.K

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →