← All Phrases

“Section 4(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 4Section 4(2)114 judgments

YOGRAJSINH G. JADEJA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 1 (1) (1) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 754/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 754/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Yograjsinh G. Jadeja, The Ito, At Chapabeda, Ward – 1(1)(1), Vs. Ta, Kotda Sangani, Rajkot Rajkot-360030 Gujarat "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bfqpj9355F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(1)

Section 5(1) of the Act dated 01-01-2021, determining the amount payable under the scheme. 3.1 As per the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, "Upon the filing of the declaration, any appeal pending before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ... been issued, the present appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn and is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn as per the provision of the section 4(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. 4. In result, the appeal is dismissed.” 4. I have gone through the order

RASAR BIOGENETICS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1266/HYD/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Us:

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 28

taxes within the prescribed period, its appeal pending before the CIT(A) would be automatically withdrawn and rendered as infructuous as per section 4(2) 5 Rasar Biogenetics vs. ITO of VSVS Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee firm remaining under the aforesaid bona fide belief

AMISH ANANTRAI MODI,MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL CIRCEL 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6281/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Ravi DasijaFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 4(2)Section 5(1)

matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who upheld the additions. At the appellate stage, the assessee opted for settlement under section 4(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (“DTVSVA”). Consequently, as per section 5(1), the appeal pending before ... unable to pay the tax determined under DTVSVA and therefore could not avail the benefit of settlement. The Ld. CIT(A), relying on section 4(2) of DTVSVA, dismissed the appeal, resulting in the assessed demand continuing to stand against the assessee. The assessee has now challenged the appellate order

SHRI ALPESH NARENDRA SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5142/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Ravi DasijaFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 4(2)Section 5(1)

matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who upheld the additions. At the appellate stage, the assessee opted for settlement under section 4(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (“DTVSVA”). Consequently, as per section 5(1), the appeal pending before ... unable to pay the tax determined under DTVSVA and therefore could not avail the benefit of settlement. The Ld. CIT(A), relying on section 4(2) of DTVSVA, dismissed the appeal, resulting in the assessed demand continuing to stand against the assessee. The assessee has now challenged the appellate order

SHRI ALPESH NARENDRA SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5141/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Ravi DasijaFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 4(2)Section 5(1)

matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who upheld the additions. At the appellate stage, the assessee opted for settlement under section 4(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (“DTVSVA”). Consequently, as per section 5(1), the appeal pending before ... unable to pay the tax determined under DTVSVA and therefore could not avail the benefit of settlement. The Ld. CIT(A), relying on section 4(2) of DTVSVA, dismissed the appeal, resulting in the assessed demand continuing to stand against the assessee. The assessee has now challenged the appellate order

NEW MANGALORE PORT ROAD COMPANY LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1053/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 New Mangalore Port Road Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited, Income Tax, Circle-16(1), D-21, Corporate Park, Vs. C. R. Building, I P Estate, Sector-21, Dwarka, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn9106E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

S H KELKAR AND COMPANY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5591/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankar: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh BhatFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary
Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 4(2)

note that the learned CIT(A) has observed that the appeal is deemed to be withdrawn in view of the provisions of Section 4(2) r.w.s. 5(2) of the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (‘DTVSV Act’ for short). 8. We have heard parties. Perused record ... justified in holding that this appeal, which was pending before him, must be deemed to have been withdrawn in view of provisions of Section 4(2) r.w.s. 5(2) of the DTVSV Act. 5 S.H. Kelkar & Co. 13. Section 4(2) and 5(2) of the DTVSV Act on which

SATYAM TRANSFORMERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(3), AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1239/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1239/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Satyam Transformers Private Limited, Ito, Ward-2(3), Sharadanand, Opposite Telephone Office, Aurangabad Ajabnagar, Aurangabad-431001 Vs. Pan : Aakcs4648D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 04-08-2025 Date Of 27-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 72

grant a certificate to the declarant containing particulars of the tax arrear and the amount payable after such determination. The provisions of section 4(2) deals with deemed withdrawal of appeal and as per said provisions, upon filing the declaration any appeal pending before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal ... issued by the designated authority. The Revenue contends that appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable, because of provisions of section 4(2) of the DTVSVS Act, 2020. The Revenue had also taken support from sub-section (7) of section 4 of the DTVSVS Act, 2020 and contended that

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is held to be partly allowed

ITA 3/LKW/2004[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Oct 2025AY 1995-96
For Appellant: \nSh. Pankaj Shukla, Adv & Shubham
Section 10Section 17Section 2Section 2(5)Section 2(7)Section 8(2)

section (1B) of section 42 of the Reserved Bank of India\nAct, 1934 or (ii) discount on treasury bills. As per section 4(2) of the Interest Tax\nAct, the interest tax is to be charged in respect of the chargeable interest of a credit\ninstitution @ 3% of such chargeable

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL ,SATNA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CIRCLE, SATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 156/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Kumar Agarwal V. Acit Circle Satna Blooms Campus, Nh-75, Panna Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Road, Satna (Mp)-485001. Lines, Satna, Mp-485001. Tan/Pan:Ackpa2596H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Mishra, Adv Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 19 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 08 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

made the payment of the disputed tax amounting to Rs. 3,88,449/- vide Challan No. 27490 dated 15.01.2025. 1.4 In terms of section 4(2) of the VSVS, read with Rule 3 of the Vivad se Vishwas Rules, once the declaration is filed and payment is made, the pending

GREAT EASTERN RETAIL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1),, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 513/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271DSection 4(2)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH”, KOLKATA SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A

STATE BANK OF INDIA (EARLIER KNOWN AS SBBJ),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

ITA 173/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 May 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Mrs. Apeksha Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 142Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 253(5)Section 292BSection 5

income.\nSection 4 is the charging section. Under section 4(1), the total income for the\nprevious year is chargeable to tax. Section 4(2), inter alia, provides that in\nrespect of income chargeable under sub-section (1), income-tax shall be\ndeducted at source where it is so deductible

PROCTER AND GAMBLE HEALTH PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 328/MUM/2025[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2005-06 Procter & Gamble Heath Ltd., The Dy. Cit-8(2)(1), P& G Plaza, Cardinal Gracias Road, Room No. 624, 6Th Floor, Vs. Chakala Andheri (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Sir M.K. Mumbai-400099. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 2616 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ajit Shah
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

above, the appeal is Form No. 5 dated 11.05.2021. In view of the above, the appeal is treated as infructuous as per Section 4(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se treated as infructuous as per Section 4(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se treated as infructuous ... Section 4(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.” 2.2 Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee however pointed Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee however pointed Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee however pointed out that the assessee opted settleme

NAVNEET BAJAJ L/H OF TARA DEVI BAJAJ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 952/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

Section 4(2)

Form nos. 1 and 2. Further the assessee submits that since the assessee has preferred to opt for the scheme, as per Section 4(2) of the “Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020”, the Revenue appeal should be deemed to have been withdrawn. 3. Hence, we are dismissing both the appeals

NAVNEET BAJAJ L/H OF TARA DEVI BAJAJ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 951/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

Section 4(2)

Form nos. 1 and 2. Further the assessee submits that since the assessee has preferred to opt for the scheme, as per Section 4(2) of the “Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020”, the Revenue appeal should be deemed to have been withdrawn. 3. Hence, we are dismissing both the appeals

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 1073/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

liable to be paid on property vested in the State Government because the State Government was not a person within the meaning of section 4(2) of the Income Tax Act. It was submitted that the ld. AO had taken a wrong interpretation of section 58 and to treat

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 1072/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

liable to be paid on property vested in the State Government because the State Government was not a person within the meaning of section 4(2) of the Income Tax Act. It was submitted that the ld. AO had taken a wrong interpretation of section 58 and to treat

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 1071/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

liable to be paid on property vested in the State Government because the State Government was not a person within the meaning of section 4(2) of the Income Tax Act. It was submitted that the ld. AO had taken a wrong interpretation of section 58 and to treat

DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MORADABAD

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 273/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

liable to be paid on property vested in the State Government because the State Government was not a person within the meaning of section 4(2) of the Income Tax Act. It was submitted that the ld. AO had taken a wrong interpretation of section 58 and to treat

K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee\nare allowed

ITA 5357/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

nsource or paid in advance, where it is so deductible\nor payable under any provision of this Act.\nFrom the aforesaid provisions of section 4(2), it is\nquite clear that income-tax is deductible at source, in\nrespect of income chargeable to tax under section 4

Showing 1–20 of 114 · Page 1 of 6