MS DIAMOND ENTERPRISES, PARBHANI,PARBHANI vs. AO NATINAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 289/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee's counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal request.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT Pune against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi. The appeal was for the assessment year 2017-18 and pertained to proceedings under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's request to withdraw its appeal before the tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Hearing: 15.05.2024Pronounced: 15.05.2024

the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1058353752(1), dated 30.11.2023, in proceedings u/s.270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned counsel representing the assessee vide letter dated 15.05.2024 seeks permission of the tribunal for withdrawal of it’s appeal reading as under :

2 ITA.No.289/PUN./2024

3.

Learned DR has no objection.

4.

We, therefore, dismiss the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 15.05.2024.

Sd/- Sd/- [INTURI RAMA RAO] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 15th May, 2024 VBP/-

3 ITA.No.289/PUN./2024 Copy to

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →