← All Phrases

“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
60
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
47
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
23
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
16
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
15
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
15
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
12
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
10
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

Citron Infraproject Ltd., Mumbai-400005 vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

ITA 1270/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

subsequently notice under section 143 (2) was issued for assessment year 2018 19. Subsequently the assessee filed an application before The Income Tax Settlement Commission [ ITSC] on 14/10/2019 which was disposed of vide order dated 14/12/2020. Before the settlement commission assessee submitted that the statement of several persons has been ... that letter stating that the additional Commissioner of income tax was fully aware of the proceedings and also the proceedings before the income tax settlement commission. He states that he is the same person who submitted the report before the settlement commission under rule 9 on 9/12/2020 and therefore

Svp South West Industries Ltd. (Formerly, Platinum Textile Ltd.), Mumbai-400005 vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

ITA 1269/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

subsequently notice under section 143 (2) was issued for assessment year 2018 19. Subsequently the assessee filed an application before The Income Tax Settlement Commission [ ITSC] on 14/10/2019 which was disposed of vide order dated 14/12/2020. Before the settlement commission assessee submitted that the statement of several persons has been ... that letter stating that the additional Commissioner of income tax was fully aware of the proceedings and also the proceedings before the income tax settlement commission. He states that he is the same person who submitted the report before the settlement commission under rule 9 on 9/12/2020 and therefore

Citron Infraproject Ltd., Mumbai-400005 vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai-400020

ITA 1268/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

subsequently notice under section 143 (2) was issued for assessment year 2018 – 19. Subsequently the assessee filed an application before The Income Tax Settlement Commission [ ITSC] on 14/10/2019 which was disposed of vide order dated 14/12/2020. Before the settlement commission assessee submitted that the statement of several persons has been ... that letter stating that the additional Commissioner of income tax was fully aware of the proceedings and also the proceedings before the income tax settlement commission. He states that he is the same person who submitted the report before the settlement commission under rule 9 on 9/12/2020 and therefore

Citron Infraproject Ltd., Mumbai-400005 vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai-20

ITA 1267/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

subsequently notice under section 143 (2) was issued for assessment year 2018 – 19. Subsequently the assessee filed an application before The Income Tax Settlement Commission [ ITSC] on 14/10/2019 which was disposed of vide order dated 14/12/2020. Before the settlement commission assessee submitted that the statement of several persons has been ... that letter stating that the additional Commissioner of income tax was fully aware of the proceedings and also the proceedings before the income tax settlement commission. He states that he is the same person who submitted the report before the settlement commission under rule 9 on 9/12/2020 and therefore

Income Tax Officer-34(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Pinaki D Panani, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the learned AO is dismissed

ITA 3617/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Income Tax Officer Pinaki D Panani 34(3)(2) 401, Mangal Villa, Vs Room No.233, 2Nd Floor, Khandekar Marg, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Ville Parle (East) Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aijpp0802A Assessee By : Shri Rahul Hakani, Ar Revenue By : Shri H.M. Bhatt, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.04.2024 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, DR
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 69C

account of purchases from suspicious dealers. The matter travelled before the learned CIT – A and further following the order of the income tax settlement commission, profit rate of 5.76% of turnover was estimated. It was further stated that total addition confirmed by the learned ... further stated that the addition of gross profit at the rate of 5.76% has also been made on account of order of income tax settlement commission in assessee's own case for assessment year 2010 – 11 to 2012 – 13. Therefore, now the addition has been rightly deleted by the learned

Indian Medical Trust, Jaipur vs. Dy. CIT, Jaipur

ITA 685/JPR/2023[A.Y. 2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2024
For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 245D(4)

Section 12AA (3) of the Act ? 6 ITA NO. 685/JP/2023 INDIAN MEDICAL TRUST VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 4. Whether the learned Income tax Settlement Commission had exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the case of the appellant for the relevant period by virtue of the Section 245F ... have exercised the power of cancellation of registration U/s. 12AA (3) of the Act, which has the effect of annulling the order of Income tax Settlement Commission? 5. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in treating voluntary donations received by the appellant

DCIT, CC-06, New Delhi vs. Jadyn Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Goa

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 943/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit, Vs. Jadyn Realtors Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-06, Ave Miriam Pirni Nagao New Delhi Salcete Vena, South Goa, Panaji, Goa (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcj9920E

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 50C

same deserves to be accepted. The ld. DR stated that Mr Jagat Kishore Chaurasia had made disclosure before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission that he had generated unaccounted cash income and utilized the same for investment in various hotels and properties, which also includes the subject mentioned property ... This was requested to be considered as a statement made from the Bar and moreover he argued that as per Rule 16 of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Rules, the application before the Settlement Commission is confidential and the same cannot be used in assessment proceedings. We do not deem

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Thane West vs. Udhavdas Mohandas Rupchandani, Ulhasnagar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3081/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ankush KapoorFor Respondent: M. Subramaniam
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 245D(4)Section 69

addition of Rs.5 crore made on account of unexplained cash investment by giving telescoping benefit of additional income declared before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) and additional income declared in the returns filed u/s 153C of the Act by M/s Konark Infrastructure (Water Supply UMC) (J/V) earlier ... also submitted before the CIT(A) that the joint venture had offered additional income of Rs.950,56,072/- before the Income Tax Settlement Commission and the substantial part of this income (Rs.905,56,072/-) was on account of additional profit on estimation of net profit @ 8% in assessment year

DCIT, Central Circle-2.4, Chennai vs. Shri Vivek Papisetty, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 212/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.212/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Vivek Papisetty बनाम Central Circle-2(4) No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Brcpp-6180-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 2. Cross Objection No.9/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.212/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Shri Vivek Papisetty Dcit No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, Vs. Central Circle-1(4) 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Brcpp-6180-N (अपीलाथ"/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit)- Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Fca)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (FCA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

unaccounted cash credit. 2.7 In the concluding part of the assessment order, Ld. AO noted that the assessee’s application before Income Tax Settlement Commission was rejected. Finally, the assessment was concluded without making any other addition. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the action of Ld. AO before first appellate authority

DCIT, Central Circle-2.4, Chennai vs. Shri Vivek Papisetty, Chennai

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 211/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.211/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit Shri Vivek Papisetty बनाम Central Circle-2(4) No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Brcpp-6180-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 2. Cross Objection No.8/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.211/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) बनाम/ Shri Vivek Papisetty Dcit No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, Vs. Central Circle-1(4) 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Brcpp-6180-N (अपीलाथ"/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit)- Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Fca)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (FCA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)

unaccounted cash credit. 4.7 In the concluding part of the assessment order, Ld. AO noted that the assessee’s application before Income Tax Settlement Commission was rejected. Finally, the assessment was concluded without making any other addition. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the action of Ld. AO before first appellate authority

M/S Coastal Energen Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1483/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1481/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1482/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1483/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Coastal Energen Private Limited Acit बनाम No.5, Bhuhari Building, Moores Road, Central Circle-1(1), / Vs. Egmore, Chennai-600 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcc-0886-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Ca)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri N. Balakrishnan (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 14-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-03-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 To 2017-18 Arise Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 31-10-2023 In The Matter Of Separate Assessments Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao]

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 32Section 43(6)

stage of proceedings either before the Income-tax authorities during the course of search proceedings or before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission or later. When the person (Shri Ahmed Buhari) who was part of the decision making process in bids and fully aware of the true facts ... clear from the statement of Shri Ahmed Buhari and also as per the report filed by Ld. Pr. CIT before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission that the amounts of depreciation disallowed are related to the additions made during the financial year(s) relevant to the assessment years. Thus

M/S Coastal Energen Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1482/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1481/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1482/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1483/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Coastal Energen Private Limited Acit बनाम No.5, Bhuhari Building, Moores Road, Central Circle-1(1), / Vs. Egmore, Chennai-600 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcc-0886-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Ca)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri N. Balakrishnan (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 14-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-03-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 To 2017-18 Arise Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 31-10-2023 In The Matter Of Separate Assessments Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao]

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 32Section 43(6)

stage of proceedings either before the Income-tax authorities during the course of search proceedings or before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission or later. When the person (Shri Ahmed Buhari) who was part of the decision making process in bids and fully aware of the true facts ... clear from the statement of Shri Ahmed Buhari and also as per the report filed by Ld. Pr. CIT before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission that the amounts of depreciation disallowed are related to the additions made during the financial year(s) relevant to the assessment years. Thus

M/S Coastal Energen Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1481/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1481/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1482/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1483/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Coastal Energen Private Limited Acit बनाम No.5, Bhuhari Building, Moores Road, Central Circle-1(1), / Vs. Egmore, Chennai-600 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcc-0886-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Ca)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri N. Balakrishnan (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 14-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-03-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 To 2017-18 Arise Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 31-10-2023 In The Matter Of Separate Assessments Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao]

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 32Section 43(6)

stage of proceedings either before the Income-tax authorities during the course of search proceedings or before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission or later. When the person (Shri Ahmed Buhari) who was part of the decision making process in bids and fully aware of the true facts ... clear from the statement of Shri Ahmed Buhari and also as per the report filed by Ld. Pr. CIT before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission that the amounts of depreciation disallowed are related to the additions made during the financial year(s) relevant to the assessment years. Thus

Alchemist Touchnology, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

ITA 1689/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshalchemist Touchnology, Vs. Acit, Building No. 23, Nehru Central Circle-20, Place, Alchemist House, Delhi South Delhi-110019 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaica1617Q Assessee By : Shri N. K. Lal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/03/2024

For Appellant: Shri N. K. Lal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 245D(1)Section 69

filed by the assessee company. On 4.12.2018, the assessee furnished Form 34BA intimating that it had preferred an application before the Hon‟ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) u/s 245D(1) of the Act. However, the same was rejected by the ITSC on 14.12.2018 for non-appearance and non-payment

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Thane West vs. Konark Infrastructure (Water Supply-Umc)(Jv), Ulhasnagar

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 3061/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanant Das, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 245C(1)Section 245D(4)

income-tax assessment for AY 2013-14 stood already completed u/s. 245D(4)/143(3) of the Act on 03.12.2014 in which the Income-tax Settlement Commission, Mumbai (‘ITSC') had rejected the books of accounts and estimated the profits of the assessee JV from this water pipeline project ... Commission offering 8% of the aggregate gross receipts from this project by way of income in these AYs including AY 2013-14. The Income-tax Settlement Commission, Mumbai passed the order of settlement u/s 245D(4) of the Act dated 03.12.2014, assessing the total income at Rs.11

Rupinder Kaur, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2002/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyarupinder Kaur, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 30, R-675, 1St Floor, New Delhi. New Rajinder Nagar, Central Delhi, New Delhi – 110 060. (Pan : Aaspk0367J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Shri Parth Singhal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 Date Of Order : 19.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is 2 however subject to outcome/decision of the application filed by the assessee’s husband before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) owning the amount of Rs.51,00,000/- taken in the name of assessee as accommodation entry. It has been submitted

Maharashtra Feeds P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1254/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 154Section 208Section 234ASection 234CSection 243CSection 245CSection 245DSection 245D(1)Section 245D(4)

NO.F. No. 299/56/2015-IT(Inv -III) dated 20.01.2016, along with a copy of DO letter dated 08.01.2016, received from Vice-chairman of the Income tax Settlement Commission (ITSC). Kolkata on the subject mentioned above. 2. In this context, I have been directed to convey that prior to the amendment by Finance ... charged interest u/s 234B of the Act in the manner provided u/s 234B (2A) of the Act as directed by the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission vide order u/s 245D (4) (supra). Therefore, no mistake apparent from the record has been found in the order passed

Maharashtra Feeds P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1253/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 154Section 208Section 234ASection 234CSection 243CSection 245CSection 245DSection 245D(1)Section 245D(4)

NO.F. No. 299/56/2015-IT(Inv -III) dated 20.01.2016, along with a copy of DO letter dated 08.01.2016, received from Vice-chairman of the Income tax Settlement Commission (ITSC). Kolkata on the subject mentioned above. 2. In this context, I have been directed to convey that prior to the amendment by Finance ... charged interest u/s 234B of the Act in the manner provided u/s 234B (2A) of the Act as directed by the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission vide order u/s 245D (4) (supra). Therefore, no mistake apparent from the record has been found in the order passed

Natasha Jain, Amabala Cantt vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 71/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18 Natasha Jain Vs. Acit H.No.-2, Tribune Colony, Central Circle – 17 Ambala Cantt. Haryana - New Delhi 133001 Pan No.Ajdpj7046D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Natasha Jain Vs. Dcit H.No.-2, Tribune Colony, Central Circle – 30 Ambala Cantt. Haryana - New Delhi 133001 Pan No.Ajdpj7046D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 271A

Priyank Sukhija but Priyank Sukhija also accepted by way of a sworn affidavit and has offered the same as his income before the income tax settlement commission. Since the order of the settlement commission was not available before the lower authorities we deem it fit to restore the issue

Natasha Jain, Ambala Cantt vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7277/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18 Natasha Jain Vs. Acit H.No.-2, Tribune Colony, Central Circle – 17 Ambala Cantt. Haryana - New Delhi 133001 Pan No.Ajdpj7046D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Natasha Jain Vs. Dcit H.No.-2, Tribune Colony, Central Circle – 30 Ambala Cantt. Haryana - New Delhi 133001 Pan No.Ajdpj7046D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 271A

Priyank Sukhija but Priyank Sukhija also accepted by way of a sworn affidavit and has offered the same as his income before the income tax settlement commission. Since the order of the settlement commission was not available before the lower authorities we deem it fit to restore the issue