Future Landmarks,, Aurangabad Income-tax Officer, Ward - 2(3),, Aurangabad

Last updated: 28 December 2020

Save Share

Quick Summary

Future Landmarks, an assessee, filed an appeal against an Income Tax Officer's order for the 2014-15 assessment year. The company subsequently requested to withdraw the appeal. This request was made because they had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme', a government initiative aimed at resolving tax disputes.

Court :
ITAT Pune

Brief :
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Aurangabad, dated 27-07-2017 in relation to the assessment year 2014-15.

Citation :
ITA No.2347/PUN/2017

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE – VIRTUAL COURT

BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND
SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.2347/PUN/2017
Assessment Year : 2014-15

Future Landmarks
A-Wing, 1st Floor, MIDC, Chikalthana, Aurangabad
PAN: AABFF9638G
Appellant

Vs.

ITO, Ward 2(3), Aurangabad
Respondent

ORDER

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Aurangabad, dated 27-07-2017 in relation to the assessment year 2014-15.

2. Before us, the assessee has filed a letter dated 09-12-2020 seeking permission to withdraw the appeal as it had applied for „Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme‟ under The Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The relevant contents of such letter, read as under :

To know more in details find the attachment file

FAQ :

The case involved an appeal filed by Future Landmarks against an order from the Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Aurangabad, concerning the assessment year 2014-15.

Future Landmarks requested to withdraw their appeal because they had applied for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme', a scheme introduced to settle tax disputes.

The 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' is a scheme under The Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, designed to resolve tax disputes.

The provided text indicates that Future Landmarks filed a letter seeking permission to withdraw the appeal, but the final decision on the withdrawal is not detailed in this excerpt.