“income tax settlement commission”

Settlement & AmnestyChapter XIX-AChapter XIX-A448 judgments

The decision most relied on for income tax settlement commission is III v. Vineeta Gupta (46 Taxmann.com 439), cited in 60 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on income tax settlement commission

III v. Vineeta Gupta

46 Taxmann.com 439 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

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.

Ajmera Housing Corpn v. CIT

326 ITR 642 · 2010 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

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.

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

252 ITR 123 · 2001 · High Court

citing judgments

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).

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

166 ITD 83 · ITAT

citing judgments

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.

Madhucon Projects Ltd. v. CCE for Settlement Commission

72 Taxmann.com 71 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

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'.

Nanji Enterprise Ltd. v. DCIT

84 Taxmann.com 155 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

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.

Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India

219 ITR 618 · 1996 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

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.

Komalkant Faikirchand Sharma v. DCIT

108 Taxmann.com 50 · High Court

citing judgments

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

ACIT-CC-1(3), Mumbai vs. Bhagwati Developers, Navi Mumbai

In the result ground number 1 and 2 of the appeal for assessment year 2015 – 16 of the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 1346/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shriraj Kumar Chauhan, Jm A.Y.2012-13 A.Y.2015-16 Acit-Central Circle-1(3), Bhagwati Developers, Mumbai 1306, 13Th Floor, Vs. Real Tech Park, Plot No.39/2, Sector-30A, Vashi Navi Mumbai Co No. 80/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 [Ita No. 1346/Mum/2024] Bhagwati Developers, Acit-Central Circle-1(3), 1306, 13Th Floor, Mumbai Real Tech Park, Plot No.39/2, Sector-30A, Vashi Navi Mumbai Pan Aalfb 5272C A.Y. 2012-13 Acit-Central Circle-1(3), Ms. Shanti Enterprises, Mumbai Office No. 1306, Real Tech Park, Plot No.39/2, Sector-30A Vashi Co No. 110/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 [Ita No. 1349/Mum/2024] Ms. Shanti Enterprises, Acit-Central Circle-1(3), Office No. 1306, Real Tech Mumbai Park, Plot No.39/2, Sector-30A Vashi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mani Jain & Shri Prateek Jain

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 69C

same arguments before him and made further written submissions on 24/11/2023 wherein it was submitted that assessee has filed a petition before Income Tax Settlement Commission for the block period 2013 – 14 to 2019 – 20 wherein on 21/9/2023 after considering the details and explanation of the assessee,, assessee has been ... officer do not show that those two parties are not existing. It was further stated that assessee has filed a petition before the income tax settlement commission for assessment year 2013 – 14 to 2019 – 20 wherein issue related to unsecured loan from several parties including these two parties were also

M/S Swastik Construction, Thane vs. I.T.O., Ward-4(4), Thane

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4818/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Shreyash Shah a/w Shri Kunal ShahFor Respondent: Shri. R. R. MakwanaSr. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

During the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A), the assessee gave an explanation that the Swastik group went before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (“Hon’ble ITSC”) and the application of the group has been accepted. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, held that the name

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

reliability to be made the foundation of a police investigation. 22. In case of Sahara, in addition we have the adjudication by the Income Tax Settlement Commission. The order has been placed on record along with I.A.No.4. The Settlement Commission has observed that the scrutiny of entries on loose

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2937/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

Divyesh Bhupendra Desai, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 802/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

verifying the information, with the submissions of the assessee. The PCIT observed that the searched party Navratna Developers has itself deposed before the Income Tax Settlement Commission that it has received on-money from purchasers of units and therefore, the Assessing Officer ought to have made addition

Ramdas Sitaram Patil, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Kolhapur

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

ITA 621/PUN/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ramdas Sitaram Patil, Vs. Acit, 238/2, Atharva Estate, Central Circle, E-Ward, Tarabai Park – 416 003 Kolhapur Kolhapur, Maharashtra Pan : Agupp5765D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

cash is eligible for exemption u/s. 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act as the same was allowed to be capitalized by Income Tax Settlement Commission. 6. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered submission of appellant that flats which were not in existence as on the date

M/S Mascot Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 2(2)(3)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2737/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Mascot Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax Officer 2(2)(3), 3Rd Floor, Indian Mercantile Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Chambers, 14R, Kamani Marg, Mumbai-400020. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001. Pan No. Aaccm 6531 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Haridas Bhat

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

Allahabad High Court in the case of Similarly Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Agarwal v. Income Tax Settlement Commission & Rajendra Prasad Agarwal v. Income Tax Settlement Commission & Rajendra Prasad Agarwal v. Income Tax Settlement Commission & Ors. Writ Tax No. 660 of Ors. Writ Tax ... dated 27.10.2010 passed by the Income Tax Settlement order dated 27.10.2010 passed by the Income Tax Settlement order dated 27.10.2010 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission, is set aside. Commission, is set aside.” 4.2 Further, the Co Further, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case

Ashok Singh, Imli Phatak vs. DCIT Central Circle 2 Jaipur, Lic Building Jaipur

ITA 576/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anil Dhaka (CIT)

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

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

John Developers, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 846/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore ITA No.844/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Plathotathil John ITA Nos.845 to

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurgaon vs. K.S.Chawla & Sons (HUF), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is found to be devoid of any merit and thus dismissed and the C

ITA 6974/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. No. 6974/Del/2018 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Acit Vs. K. S. Chawla & Sons (Huf) 7Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, Central Circle – I, Gurugram Udyog Vihar, Phase-5, Gurugram Pan: Aadhk 7622 M

For Appellant: Shri Parikshi Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT-D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

investment so made by the assessee, shall be recorded in the books of the assessee, once the final orders of Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission are passed. It is also not out of context to mention here that the assessee had stated in letter dated 11.03.2016 that there ... appellant's reply under Rule 9 Report before the Hon'ble ITSC. CO No.15/Del/2019 Charan Singh 6.4 Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission Additional Bench-1, New Delhi in order u/s 245D (4) of the Act in case of M/s Spaze Towers Pvt Ltd has adjudicated the matter as hereunder

Hospira Healthcare India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 469/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.469/Chny/2017 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Hospira Healthcare India The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, Sri-Nivas, New No.86 (Old No.89), Corporate Circle-2(2), Gn Chetty Road, T Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Aaabco 2190F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A Jkथ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13, In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengalore (Hereinafter ‘Drp’) Vide Directions Dated 09.11.2016. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A JKFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)

Apotex Corp and Apotex Inc Signet also as Associated Enterprises of the assessee. The Ld. TPO relied on an order dated 28.03.2012 of Income Tax Settlement Commission in the case of M/s. :- 5 -: Orchid India for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2010-2011 for coming to a conclusion that

Srishti Associates, Kota, Rajasthan vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota, Kota-Rajasthan

ITA 587/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153DSection 246ASection 44A

ITA NO. 587/JP/2024 SRISHTI ASSOCIATES VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA 2 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

Enn Vee Holdings Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 31, New Delhi

In the result, the addition made u/s 68 and u/s 56(2)(viib) in the case of M/s Realtime Marketing Pvt

ITA 1195/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

Parab along with seized documents constitute incriminating material especially in view of the disclosure made by the group before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission. The ld. DR argued that that Shri Ashok Jain admitted in his sworn statement u/s 132(4) that commission was paid in cash ... Harshit Finvest Pvt. Ltd. and ordered that no addition can be made in the income declared before the Income Tax Settlement Commission on account of the share application money received from the above entities as the department has not been able to adduce any evidence against the applicant (page