What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee's counsel filed a written submission requesting to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(Appeals) for the assessment year 2011-12. The appeal was related to the ownership of premises and indexation.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the assessee was the owner of the premises and entitled to indexation. However, the appeal was withdrawn before this could be adjudicated.

Bharat & Co. vs ITO | s.143(3) | ITAT Mumbai 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI N. K. PRADHAN, AM

For Appellant: Shri Apurva R. Shah, Shri Rajesh Ojha

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha

सुनवाई क� तार�ख / : 20.10.2016 Date of Hearing घोषणा क� तार�ख / : 20 .10.2016 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per N. K. Pradhan, A. M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2011- 12. It is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai and arises out of the order u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).

The ground of appeal filed by the assessee reads as under: ‘The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai erred:-

(A.Y. 2011-12) Bharat & Co. vs. ITO In not holding that appellant was the owner of the premises at Bharat Diamond Bourse since 1991 when it had made an application for the same and in allowing indexation accordingly.’ 3. The ld. Counsel of the assessee filed a written submission dated 10.10.2016 stating that the assessee would like to withdraw the appeal and the same may be permitted.

In view of the above written submission of the ld. Counsel of the assessee, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open court on October 20 , 2016

Sd/- Sd/- (C. N. Prasad) (N. K. Pradhan) �या�यक सद�य / Judicial Member लेखा सद�य / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 20.10.2016 व.�न.स./Roshani, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent 2. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयु�त / CIT - concerned 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड� फाईल / Guard File 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

(A.Y. 2011-12) Bharat & Co. vs. ITO

BHARAT & CO.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(3)(1), 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