“ income tax settlement commission ”

Ajmera Housing Corpn v. CIT

A declaration made by another party before the Income Tax Settlement Commission is not binding on the assessee, and no addition can be made in the assessee's assessment in the absence of independent material connecting the assessee to the transaction.

326 ITR 642 · 2010 · Supreme Court

CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala: 252ITR 1 (SC) 2. CIT v. Elelvinator of India Ltd.

The scope of proceedings before the Income-tax Settlement Commission under Chapter XIX-A is sui generis, primarily for disclosure and akin to arbitration, and not an appellate forum to examine complex legal disputes.

252 ITR 123 · 2001 · High Court

Anantnadh Constructions and Farms (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

The case of CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (SC) is authority for the proposition that the Settlement Commission's power regarding waiver of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act can be exercised in relation to the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT).

166 ITD 83 · ITAT

Madhucon Projects Ltd. v. CCE for Settlement Commission

An addition to income cannot be made solely on the basis of income offered by an assessee before the Settlement Commission if there is no incriminating material. Information provided to the Settlement Commission, even if admitted under section 245D, can only be used for settlement purposes and not for other proceedings.

72 Taxmann.com 71 · 2016 · High Court

Nanji Enterprise Ltd. v. DCIT

Different expressions within a statute must be interpreted to have distinct meanings. This principle is relevant to understanding the definition of 'specified previous year' under Section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, particularly concerning the phrase 'in which search was conducted'.

84 Taxmann.com 155 · 2017 · High Court

Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India

Income offered to tax under a settlement application with the Income Tax Settlement Commission cannot be taxed again in the hands of the assessee, as the settlement order by its statutory scheme is final.

219 ITR 618 · 1996 · Supreme Court

Komalkant Faikirchand Sharma v. DCIT

Penalty proceedings do not fall within the ambit of Section 245E of the Income-tax Act, and the Settlement Commission exceeds its jurisdiction if it drops penalty proceedings while deciding a settlement application.

108 Taxmann.com 50 · High Court

ITA 1230/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Once an application for settlement is made under Section 245C(1) and accepted by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC), and a final order is passed under Section 245D(4), the Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. An order under Section 245D(4) is distinct from a regular assessment under Sections 143(1), 143(3), or 144.

Judgments citing income tax settlement commission

Saurabh Mehta, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Central Circle-30, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1230/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Saurabh Mehta, Vs Dcit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Central Circle-30, New Delhi-110062 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Almpm4798E Assessee By : Sh. Harshit Srivastava, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)-27, New Delhi’S Order Dated 17.02.2023 In Case No. Cit(A), Delhi-27/10486/2018-19, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Harshit Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

impugned sums already stand assessed in the hands of Mr. Yash Pal Ashok (one of the controllers of Sukhija Group) in the Income Tax Settlement Commission which has 2 Saurabh Mehta attained finality. The assessee’s case accordingly before us is that the impugned addition made in his hands deserves

DCIT-CC-3(4), Mumbai vs. Dinesh Lakhmichand Rohira, Mumbai

ITA 5463/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra PathakFor Respondent: Shri R R Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

back of the assessee cannot be relied upon. It is submitted that even the statements/submissions made on behalf of Wadhwa Group before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC), allegedly owning the entire cash transaction cannot bind the assessee. 11. We have considered the submissions made. The record discloses that there

SMC Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3497/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule, CIT/DR &

Section 143(2)Section 801ASection 80I

seizure operation was carried out in the premises of the assessee and the assessee preferred to file an application before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) and the ITSC vide its order u/s.245D (6B) r.w.s. 245D(4) of the Act dated 02/12/2016 decided the issue of eligibility

Mahendra Tulsidas Thakker, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Int Tax Ward-4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3885/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 148Section 250Section 254(1)Section 69A

Tax, Circle-2(4) ITA No.274/M/2021 decided on 05.04.2022 has dealt with the identical issue, wherein the disclosure made by the Assessee before Income Tax Settlement Commission (in short “the ITSC”) was taken into consideration for making the addition. However, the tribunal did not approve such addition ... assessee’s application under section 245(1) was incorrect. We find that any confidential information disclosed in annexure to the settlement application before Income Tax Settlement Commission can never be the basis to make the addition. We find that in the instant case, the AO has reopened the assessment under

Mohan Lal Ashok Kumar Saraf, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 879/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Totuka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

occasions out of which 10 winnings were from Jackpots and 3 were from Treble events by Chairman of the Income Tax Settlement Commission, and observed that "This, in our opinion, is a superficial approach to the problem. The matter has to be considered in the light of human probabilities". Their

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 464/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)

ITA 463/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

` आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)

ITA 462/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

` आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)

ITA 427/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

` आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

ACIT, CC-2, Jaipur, Income Tax Department vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)

ITA 423/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

` आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)

ITA 412/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

` आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Shivam Readymix Private Limited, Neemuch vs. The PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 69C

information provided by M/s Triveni Grit Manufacturing Company, it filed a separate application in its case before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission and has duly disclosed such undisclosed sales. As the assessee company was not in the possession of complete documents / information for various assessment years ... information provided by M/s Triveni Grit Manufacturing Company, it filed a separate application in its case before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission and has duly disclosed such undisclosed sales. As the assessee company was not in the possession of complete documents / information for various assessment years

Karan Vyapaar Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Thane

In the result, all the appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3636/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Shri. Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das – CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 271BSection 40A(3)

facilitated this loan transaction to the above party and he has offered the said commission in the application filed before Income Tax settlement commission, copy of relevant page is enclosed in APB page 11-12. Accordingly, this addition is also not sustainable as assessee has already offered income

Princy Josekutty, Ernakulam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - I, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeal is Dismissed

ITA 621/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Smt. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

ITA 620/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

under consideration was offered to tax in the hands of her husband Shri Josekutty Xavier in the petition filed before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC). In the absence of any evidence, such as order by the ITSC, to validate the claim of the appellant, the AO made

Princy Josekutty, Ernakulam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - I, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeal is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Smt. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

ITA 619/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Princy Josekutty, Ernakulam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - I, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeal is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Smt. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

ITA 618/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Princy Josekutty, Ernakulam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - I, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeal is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Smt. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R