Auric Merchandising Services vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)
Parties Involved
Facts Summary
This appeal was filed by Auric Merchandising Services against the order dated 21.7.2024 passed by the NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2012-13. During the hearing, the appellant's representative, Shri Ranjeet Kesharwani, CA, submitted that the assessee wishes to withdraw the appeal as it has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 (DTVSV 2024) relating to assessment year 2012-13. However, the requisite Form 2 has not yet been issued by the department. Therefore, he requested that the appeal may be treated as dismissed being withdrawn with the condition that if somehow the dispute is not settled by the Revenue, the assessee should be entitled to get the said appeal restored. The Learned Senior DR, Shri Sanjay Kumar, had no objection to this request.…
Decision in favour of
Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue
Legal Issues
- 1. Whether the appeal can be withdrawn by the assessee under the condition that it can be restored if the dispute is not settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024.
Judgment Outcome
Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.
Similar Judgements
MADHU CHAUDHARY VS. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE
Delhi Bench benchAY 2020-21DismissedPramod Agarwal vs. ACIT- 61(1)
Delhi Bench benchAY 2015-16DismissedFederation of Indian Granite & Stone Industry Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle 1, Bangalore. / The DCIT, Central Circle 1, Bangalore.
C Bench: Bangalore benchAY 2014-15, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21DismissedSh. Anubav Aggarwal vs. ACIT, Circle 43(1)
Delhi Bench benchAY 2013-14DismissedSh. Devender Kumar vs. ITO, Ward 1, Rohtak
Delhi Bench benchAY 2012-13DismissedANKUR YADAV VS. NFAC, NEW DELHI
Delhi Bench benchAY 2013-14Dismissed