9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation made by the PCIT in Form No. 3, the mandatory condition of Section 5 (2 ) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 remained uncomplied and therefore, in such a situation, the CIT( A) grossly erred in treating the appeal pending before him as withdrawn by the appellant . HELD THAT:- As DR has not contested any of the factual assertions made by the Ld. AR, and contended that the CIT( A) has referred to Form Nos. 1 , 2 , 3 issued under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 which were appearing in ITBA system, and therefore, he has dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, though he conceded that Form Nos. 4 5 were not available on the ITBA system. Be that as it may, according to the Ld. DR the merits of the issue can be examined only at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lding that the appellant has opted for Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme Act 2020. 2.1 That on facts and in the law. the CIT( A) has erred in holding that Appeal No. Delhi- 4/ 10656/ 2019- 20 is treated as withdrawn by the appellant in accordance with provisions of section 4( 2) of The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 . 2.2 That on facts and in law the CIT( A) has erred in not appreciating that: (a) There was no culmination of the proceedings initiated under the VSVS Act, and (b) As per provisions of section 4 ( 6) of the The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 Appeal No. Delhi- 4/ 10656 / 2019- 20 was never withdrawn as the condition referred to in section 5( 2) was never complied with. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT( A) has e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefrom, invoking the provisions of section 40( a) i) of the Act. 7.1 That on facts and in law the CIT( A) / AO have erred in not appreciating that tax was not required to be deducted at source on supplementary lease rentals since the same were not taxable. 8. That on facts and in law the CIT( A) has erred in upholding the action of AO in disallowing deduction of expenditure on replacement of seats of the air crafts amounting to Rs 4,78,37,702/- holding the same to be capital expenditure. 9. Without Prejudice, that on facts and in law the CIT( A) / AO have erred in not allowing depreciation u/ s 32 of the Act on expenditure of Rs 4,78,37,702/- held to be capital expenditure. 10. That on facts and in law the CIT( A) has erred in not admitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has been dismissed by treating the same as withdrawn by the appellant , whereas no such fact-situation persisted before the CIT( A). The Ld. AR, pointed that the CIT(A) was under a misapprehension that the assessee has settled the disputed tax arrears under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 whereas in actuality the assessee did not finally pursue the remedy under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, though the competent authority had issued Form No. 3 . Since the taxes were not paid as per the determination made by the PCIT in Form No. 3, the mandatory condition of Section 5 (2 ) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 remained uncomplied and therefore, in such a situation, the CIT( A) grossly erred in treati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
