BP INDIA SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT ) 8(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act granted immunity from penalty. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The quantum appeal for the same assessment year was settled under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
What were the issues?
Whether the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act grants immunity from penalty, and if so, the consequence for the pending penalty appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, K BENCH, MUMBAI
order : 22.06.2022 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the present appeal the Appellant/Assessee has challenged the order, dated 22.01.2014, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] in appeal [CIT(A)- 15/Curr.129/13-14], for the Assessment Year 2005-06, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant against the penalty order, dated 21.03.2012, passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’].
Assessment Year: 2005-06 2. Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant appearing before us submitted that the quantum appeal for the Assessment Year 2005-06 has been settled under the provisions of Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DTVSV Act’). In this regard, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant placed on record (a) declaration and undertaking in Form 1 wherein disclosure was made about the present appeal pertaining to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, (b) certificate in Form 3 issued under Section 5(1) of the DTVSV Act [Acknowledgement No. 999143970040121] and (c) order of full and final settlement of tax arrears under Section 5(2) read with Section 6 of the DTVSV Act in Form 5 [Acknowledgement No. 847851751181121] which clearly provides that, inter alia the Appellant has been granted immunity from imposition of penalty in terms of Section 6 of the DTVSV Act. In view of the aforesaid, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant requested for the withdrawal of the present appeal. The learned Departmental Representative did not have any objections to the aforesaid request.
In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
Order pronounced on 22.06.2022.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA Rep Thr The Intelligence Officer, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (Dggi)Jharkhand · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Om.S.R. Construction, Through Its Proprietor Mr. Kuldeep Sharma vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Commissioner, Commerical Tax DepartmentJharkhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026