AMBIT SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, WARD-1, PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 86/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 April 2024Bench: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA (Vice President), SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed six appeals for assessment year 2015-16 against an order by the CIT(A). The appeals were filed under Section 154 read with Section 200A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's representative sought permission to withdraw these appeals.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's request to withdraw their pending appeals before the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 200A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 26.04.2024Pronounced: 26.04.2024

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : These assessee’s six appeals for assessment year 2015-16, arise against the CIT(A), Pune-10, Order in appeal No.PN/CIT(A)10/ACIT(CPC)-TDS/93/18-19/379, dated 30.07.2019, involving proceedings u/s.154 r.w.s.200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

During the course of hearing, Mr. Abhay Avchat, vide letter dated 26.04.2024, seeks permission of the tribunal for withdrawal of these appeals reading as under :

2 ITA.Nos.82 to 87/PUN./2024

3.

Learned DR has no objection.

4.

We, therefore, dismiss the appeals of the assessee as withdrawn in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Ordered accordingly.

3 ITA.Nos.82 to 87/PUN./2024 Order pronounced in the open Court on 26.04.2024.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →