Rashesh B. Kanakia v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 23, Mumbai
High Court
12 Jan 2021 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Rashesh B. Kanakia v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 23, Mumbai
Date of order
12 Jan 2021
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Rashesh B. Kanakia v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 23, Mumbai, the High Court (2021) decided the matter.
Decision: 7.Considering the above, we allow the appellant towithdraw the appeal.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
S.S.Kilaje
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1648 OF 2017
Rashesh B. Kanakia
..Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 23, Mumbai
..Respondent
...................
Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the Appellant.Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the Appellant.
Mr. Sham Walve for the Respondent. Mr. Sham Walve for the Respondent.
...................
CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN &
MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 12, 2021.
P.C.:
1.Heard Mr. Jasani, learned counsel for the appellant andMr. Walve, learned standing counsel Revenue for therespondent.
2. This appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act,
1961 has been preferred by the assessee as the appellantagainst the order dated 25.01.2017 passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, 'H' Bench, Mumbai in I.T.A. No.941/Mum/2011 and C.O. NO. 256/Mum/2014 for theassessment year 2007-08.
3.The appeal is pending for admission.
4.Today the appeal is before us on a praecipe filed bylearned counsel for the appellant.
5.It is submitted that Parliament has enacted the DirectTax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (briefly 'the Act' hereinafter)providing for a scheme for resolution of tax disputes.Appellant has filed a declaration under section 3 of the saidAct on 22.12.2020 before the Designated Authority whichhad thereafter issued a certificate under section 5(1) of thesaid Act on 01.01.2021 determining the tax dues payable by
the assessee. However, for passing of the final order undersection 5(2) of the said Act, appellant is required to withdrawthe appeal in terms of section 4(3) thereof. Hence, theprayer for withdrawal of the appeal.
6.Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection tothe prayer made for withdrawal of the appeal.
7.Considering the above, we allow the appellant towithdraw the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed ofas withdrawn.
8.Refund as per Rules.
9.This order will be digitally signed by the PrivateSecretary of this Court. All concerned will act on productionby fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] [ UJJAL BHUYAN, J. ]
Digitallysigned byRavindraRavindra M.M.AmberkarAmberkarDate:2021.01.1216:27:47+0530
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.