← All Phrases

“Section 5(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 5Section 5(3)16 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 5(3) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 5(3)

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.
312 ITR 254 · 2009 · Supreme Court
968
citing judgments

Foreign exchange fluctuations, whether gains or losses, are inextricably linked to the underlying business transaction and must be accounted for under the mercantile system. The Supreme Court also affirmed the standard accounting principle of valuing stock at cost or net realisable value, whichever is lower.

279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises
298 ITR 141 · 2008 · High Court
706
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund or ESI, even if deposited after the due date specified in the respective welfare statutes, are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return. This judgment aligns the treatment of employee contributions with employer contributions under Section 43B.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.
342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court
658
citing judgments

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
384 ITR 490 · 2016 · High Court
631
citing judgments

Co-operative banks are not fundamentally different from co-operative societies, entitling them to claim deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including for interest income treated as business income.

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.
345 ITR 494 · 2012 · High Court
461
citing judgments

Payments by Indian residents to non-resident foreign software suppliers for software are considered royalty, constituting income deemed to accrue in India under section 9(1)(v), thereby requiring tax deduction at source under section 195.

Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT
288 ITR 408 · 2007 · Supreme Court
394
citing judgments

Income from offshore supply of goods and services is not taxable in India if the entire transaction, including transfer of ownership and payments, occurs outside India.

Judgments citing Section 5(3)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Oasys Cybermatics Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3102/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mr. ARV Srinivasan, CIT for Mr. Bipin C. N., CITFor Respondent: Mr. Ravi Kannan &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)Section 5(3)

they have not attained finality under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering that section 5(3) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 provides that every order passed under sub- section (1) shall be conclusive only in respect ... were not the issues considered in the original assessment and therefore the reopening was valid. The ld. DR further submitted that as per section 5(3) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, the order passed under the scheme is conclusive only in respect of matters covered

Talha Agency, Modasa vs. PCIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 279/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah & Shri Gulab ThakorFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT. DR
Section 263Section 5Section 5(3)Section 57Section 6Section 8

which cannot be subsequently reopened by issuing notice u/s.263 of the Act for revising assessment order. It is pertinent to mention here that Section 5(3) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 states as under: “(3) Every order passed under sub-section (1), determining the amount payable

Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Beed vs. DCIT(E0 Circle, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2176/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2176/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Vs. Dcit, Exemption Circle, Mandal, Aurangabad. 0 Anand Bhavan, Nagar Road, At Post Tq Ashti, Dist. Beed- 414203. Pan : Aaets0130K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari &
Section 115Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 80G

also bear in mind the provisions which stand enshrined in Section 4(6). On a conjoint reading of Section 4(6) alongside Section 5(3), we find that the determination as carried out by the Designated Authority is clearly rendered finality and cannot possibly be reopened or revised ... salutary safeguard with regard to the conclusiveness and finality which otherwise stands attached to a determination under the enactment by virtue of Section 5(3). 17. However, the action which is asserted to be one in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 154 of the Act would clearly

Sula Vineyards Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2082/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (ACCOUNTANT

Sahakarmaharshi Bhausaheb Thorat Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Ahmednagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1653/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1653/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sahakarmaharshi Bhausaheb V The Deputy Thorat Ssk Ltd., S Commissioner Of At Amrutnagar, P.O.Sangamner, Income Tax, Circle, Tal.Sangamner, Ahmednagar. Dist.Ahmednagar, Maharashtra – 422608. Pan: Aaaas3893G Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Mihir M. Bapat – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Add.Commissioner Of Income Tax/Jcit(A)-8, Delhi U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 15.06.2024 For A.Y.2017-18. “1. The A.O. Has Erred In Adding To Income Of Rs.15,54,94,967/- Being Excess Sugar Cane Price Paid To Members & Non Members. The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Be Deleted.

Section 250Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(xvii)Section 4Section 5(1)Section 5(3)

liable to pay, within fourteen days of the receipt thereof, the minimum price as per FRP applicable at the relevant time. While Section 5(3) reads as 'Sec 5(3) The actual payment for Sugarcane fixed by the Board shall be paid in two steps. The first would be payment

Samrudh Vividoddesha Souharda Sahakari Niyamita, Shivamogga vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-5, Shivamogga

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1085/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Samrudh Vividoddesha Souharda Sahakari Niyamita, The Income Tax 1St Floor, Belaguru Officer, Complex, Ward – 5, Durgigudi Main Road, Shivamogga. Shivamogga. Vs. Karnataka – 577 201. Pan: Aaals0413K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Varun Bhat, CA
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(19)Section 5(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

assessment by disallowing deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) by holding that, the assessee is registered as per section 5(3) of Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 and not under Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. It was thus held by the Ld.AO that

Sri Siddeshwar Souharda Pattin Sahakari Niyamitha Vijayapura, Vijayapura vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1& Tps, Bijapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1084/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Sri Siddeshwar Souharda Pattin Sahakari Niyamitha, The Income Tax Siddeshwara Road, Officer, Bijapur, Ward 1 & Tps, Vijayapura, Bijapur. Vs. Karnataka – 586 101. Pan: Aaabs1457M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Varun Bhat, CA
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(19)Section 5(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 8o

assessment by disallowing deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) by holding that, the assessee is registered as per section 5(3) of Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 and not under Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. It was thus held by the Ld.AO that

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Genpact India, Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the

ITA 4251/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 10ASection 143(3)

settled by the assessee under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. He drew the attention of the Bench to Explanation given in Section 5(3) of Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 to drive home the point that making a declaration under Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 shall not amount

Ms. Genpact India, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the

ITA 4060/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 10ASection 143(3)

settled by the assessee under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. He drew the attention of the Bench to Explanation given in Section 5(3) of Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 to drive home the point that making a declaration under Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 shall not amount

Laxmi Narayan Agarwal, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Income Tax Department

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

provisions of DTVSV Act go against the assessee. For the sake of convenience, relevant provisions of DTVSV Act, 2020 are given hereunder: Section 5(3) Every order passed under sub-section (1), determining the amount payable under this Act, shall be conclusive as to the matters stated therein ... that assessee’s declaration filed under VSVS was accepted prior to issuance of notice u/s 263. It is further submitted that as per section 5(3) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, every order passed under sub section 5(1), determining the amount payable under this

Pioneer Insurance & Reinsurance Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 935/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘C’ BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Aby T Varkey (JM

Pioneer Investcorp Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 934/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘C’ BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Aby T Varkey (JM

Pioneer Investcorp Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 933/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘C’ BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Aby T Varkey (JM

Sri. Pavan Kandkur, Hubballi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubballi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Pavan Kandkur Vs Principle Commissioner Of Cts No. 3046, Hirepeth Nagar Income Tax Near Akkikonda Aayakar Bhavan Hubballi 580020 Navanagar Pan – Anipk4256B Hubballi 580025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Balram R. Rao, Adv. Revenue By: Ms. Neera Malmotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/11/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit, Hubali Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 23.03.2022 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Conditions 1. Precedent Being Absent The Proceedings-Initiated U/S.263 Of The Act Was Opposed To Law & The Order Passed U/S.263 Is Liable To Be Cancelled. On The Facts There Being No Error Much Less An Error Prejudicial To The 2. Interest Of Revenue, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ought To Have Refrained From Invoking The Provisions Of Sec.263 Of The Act. The Learned Commissioner Ought To Have Considered The Submissions 3. Made By The Appellant & Ought Not To Have Invoked The Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malmotra, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 5(3)Section 8

gone for the VSV scheme 2020 to settle the issues with the Income Tax Department. 10. The Ld. CIT erred in relying on section 5(3) and section 8 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme Act 2020 in order to revise the order passed under 143(3 ... benefit, concession or immunity on the declarant in any proceedings other than those in relation to which the declaration has been made. Section 5(3) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act is as follows: (3) Every order passed under sub-section (1), determining the amount payable under this

Hdb Employees Welfare Trust, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -20, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 744/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 5(3)Section 56Section 57

Scheme) could not be construed that the Appellant has acquiesced in the decision on the disputed issue by settling the dispute (Explanation to Section 5(3) of Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020). 5. The Learned Pr. CIT - 20, Mumbai has erred in passing the Order

Beam Global Spirits & Wine (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 961/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surenderpal, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 4Section 4(5)Section 5(1)Section 5(3)Section 92C

circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO erred in passing the final assessment order in contravention to the provisions of Section 5(3) of the VSV Act. Further, in doing, the Ld. AO grossly erred in disregarding the express provisions of law providing finality to the proceedings concluded