← 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

Macro Township Pvt Ltd, 288-289 Mahaveer Nagar Durgapura Jaipur vs. DCIT CC -2 Jaipur, Lic Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 399/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 153CSection 250Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Macro Township Pvt Ltd, 288-289 Mahaveer Nagar Durgapura Jaipur vs. DCIT CC-2 Jaipur, Lic Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 398/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 153CSection 250Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Macro Township Pvt Ltd, 288-289 Mahaveer Nagar Durgapura Jaipur vs. DCIT CC -2 Jaipur, Lic Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 397/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 153CSection 250Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Hema Kanwar Narendra Singh Rathod, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 159/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 245CSection 245DSection 250Section 68

respectively even though said income has been accepted and owned by her husband Sh Narendra Singh in application filed by him before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) u/s 245C of the I.T. Act, 1961 and said application has been accepted by the Hon’ble ITSC u/s 245D ... that after search, the husband of the assessee filed settlement application under section 245C of the IT Act before the Income Tax Settlement Commission on 24.01.2020. A copy of the said settlement application filed also included the capital gain income declared in the income tax return of present assessee

Hema Kanwar Narendra Singh Rathod, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 158/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 245CSection 245DSection 250Section 68

respectively even though said income has been accepted and owned by her husband Sh Narendra Singh in application filed by him before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) u/s 245C of the I.T. Act, 1961 and said application has been accepted by the Hon’ble ITSC u/s 245D ... that after search, the husband of the assessee filed settlement application under section 245C of the IT Act before the Income Tax Settlement Commission on 24.01.2020. A copy of the said settlement application filed also included the capital gain income declared in the income tax return of present assessee

Jayesh Vinodkumar Tanna, Mumbai vs. ACIT-25(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1152/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhjayeshvinodkumartanna, Vs. Acit-25(3) 701 Ram Kripa, Mumbai Devjibhimji Lane, Mathuradas Road, Kandivali (W), Mumbai – 400067 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No:Aaapt8415A Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Jayant Bhatt Respondent By : Ajay Singh Date Of Hearing 10.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23.10.2023

For Appellant: Jayant BhattFor Respondent: Ajay Singh
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D(4)Section 68Section 68A

appellant has offered the said amount as income in application filed and accepted u/s 245C(1) of the Act before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred ... offered as income in application filed and accepted u/s 245C(1) of the Act before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission, thereby lending the appeal filed before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as infructuous. 3. The Appellant craves leaves to add, to amend, alter, modify

Smt. Monalisa Das, Sambalpur vs. D.C.I.T, Central Circle, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Oct 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sanjoy Chatterjee, CAFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, Sr. DR
Section 245Section 245CSection 245D(1)Section 245D(4)Section 69

been offered by showing the same as application of money/outflow of fund in the application made u/s.245C of the Act before the Income Tax Settlement Commission in the hands of Shri Braja Kishore Das. A perusal of the order of the Settlement Commission at para 6.2 shows that the same

DCIT-CC 5(2), Mumbai vs. Krishiraj Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1923/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Kunal Agarwal a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

during the demonetisation period as the assessee has failed to prove the link or nexus between the income offered before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission and the cash deposited during the demonetisation period. 3. The Applicant craves to leave, to add, to amend and/or to alter ... income earned in cash of Rs.1,75,00,000 and the said income has duly been offered to tax before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (“Hon’ble ITSC”). It was further submitted that the assessee was able to find buyers only for 38 acres 5 gunthas

The ACIT Central-1, Indore vs. Shri Mayankraj Singh Bhadoria, Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 176/IND/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central)-1 Shri Mayankraj Singh Indore Bhadoria Vs. 9, Gulmohar Extension Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan:Amzpb 4659 B Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Manjeet Sachdeva & Avinash Gaur, Ars Date Of Hearing 28.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2023

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 245CSection 245D(1)Section 69Section 69A

Therefore, it is a matter of verification whether the father of the assesse who is one of the applicants before Income Tax Settlement Commission declared the income arising from search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act includes the income on account of cash of Rs.11 lacs and jewellery ... Mayankraj Singh Bhadoria Page 4 of 5 income in respect of these two items being cash and jewellery before the Income Tax Settlement Commission and paid due taxes. The ld. CIT(A) has also observed that in view of the order of the Settlement Commission the addition made

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurgaon vs. Noni Farms P.Ltd, Gurgaon

In the result, assessee’s application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT

ITA 6973/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: the date of utilization and the onus to prove it, is on the person who is claiming the benefit and not on the Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 132(4)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(iv)

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 ... search, however, ld. CIT (A) did not decide this aspect. Ld. CIT (A) adjudicated the issue on merits. Ld. CIT (A) referred to Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC), New Delhi order in the case of Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd.. Referring to the above order, ld. CIT (A) concluded

Sh. Sham Lal, Chandigarh vs. D.C.I.T, Central Circle, Amritsar

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

ITA 267/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245HSection 250Section 271Section 271A

that the search u/s 132 was conducted on 03.09.2009. Consequent upon the same, the assessee filed an application u/s 245C(1) before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (in short ITSC) at new Delhi on 24.11.2011. The order u/s 245D (4) dated 28.05.2013 I.T.A. No. 267/Asr/2017 4 Assessment Year

Macro Proprieties Private Limited, M 28 Income Tax Colony Tonk Road Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Lic Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 174/JPR/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-2 LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri JameshKurian, CI

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri JameshKurian, CIT
Section 153CSection 50C(1)Section 69

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf

Jamnadas Ramjibhai Vikani, Manavadar vs. DCIT, Int.Tax.Rajkot, Rajkot

ITA 73/RJT/2023[2000-01]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot28 Jun 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Block Period: 1.4.89 To 8.6.1999) Shri Jamnadas R Vikani The Deputy बनाम/ 22, Kailashnagar, Mitadi Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Manavadar Tax Cirlce-1(1), Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavpv6232E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/06/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/06/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Sets Of Orders; Two Dated 16.07.2003 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot In Ita Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & And Other Two Orders Dated 27.01.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad In Ita Nos. 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 132Section 158BSection 245F(2)Section 245HSection 269SSection 271D

During the pendency of the assessment proceeding consequent to search, the appellant filed a settlement application before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Mumbai on 23.05.2001. It is ITA Nos. 215/Rjt/2022 & 3 Ors. (Jamnadas R. Vikani vs. DCIT) - 3- relevant to mention that in response to show ... payment of interest ITA Nos. 215/Rjt/2022 & 3 Ors. (Jamnadas R. Vikani vs. DCIT) - 4- stating that the proceeding before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission had abated under Section 245HA of the Act since 31.07.2007. 9. Being aggrieved by and/or dissatisfied with the said order dated 28.05.2013 the appellant

Jamnadas Ramjibhai Vikani, Manavadar vs. DCIT, Int.Tax, Rajkot

ITA 72/RJT/2023[BP 01.04.1989 to 08.06.1999]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot28 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Block Period: 1.4.89 To 8.6.1999) Shri Jamnadas R Vikani The Deputy बनाम/ 22, Kailashnagar, Mitadi Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Manavadar Tax Cirlce-1(1), Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavpv6232E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/06/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/06/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Sets Of Orders; Two Dated 16.07.2003 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot In Ita Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & And Other Two Orders Dated 27.01.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad In Ita Nos. 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 132Section 158BSection 245F(2)Section 245HSection 269SSection 271D

During the pendency of the assessment proceeding consequent to search, the appellant filed a settlement application before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Mumbai on 23.05.2001. It is ITA Nos. 215/Rjt/2022 & 3 Ors. (Jamnadas R. Vikani vs. DCIT) - 3- relevant to mention that in response to show ... payment of interest ITA Nos. 215/Rjt/2022 & 3 Ors. (Jamnadas R. Vikani vs. DCIT) - 4- stating that the proceeding before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission had abated under Section 245HA of the Act since 31.07.2007. 9. Being aggrieved by and/or dissatisfied with the said order dated 28.05.2013 the appellant

Jamndas Ramjibhai Vikani, Manavadar vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

ITA 216/RJT/2022[2000-01]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot28 Jun 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Block Period: 1.4.89 To 8.6.1999) Shri Jamnadas R Vikani The Deputy बनाम/ 22, Kailashnagar, Mitadi Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Manavadar Tax Cirlce-1(1), Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavpv6232E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/06/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/06/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Sets Of Orders; Two Dated 16.07.2003 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot In Ita Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & And Other Two Orders Dated 27.01.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad In Ita Nos. 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 132Section 158BSection 245F(2)Section 245HSection 269SSection 271D

During the pendency of the assessment proceeding consequent to search, the appellant filed a settlement application before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Mumbai on 23.05.2001. It is ITA Nos. 215/Rjt/2022 & 3 Ors. (Jamnadas R. Vikani vs. DCIT) - 3- relevant to mention that in response to show ... payment of interest ITA Nos. 215/Rjt/2022 & 3 Ors. (Jamnadas R. Vikani vs. DCIT) - 4- stating that the proceeding before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission had abated under Section 245HA of the Act since 31.07.2007. 9. Being aggrieved by and/or dissatisfied with the said order dated 28.05.2013 the appellant

Jamndas Ramjibhai Vikani, Manavadar vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

ITA 215/RJT/2022[2000-01]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot28 Jun 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Block Period: 1.4.89 To 8.6.1999) Shri Jamnadas R Vikani The Deputy बनाम/ 22, Kailashnagar, Mitadi Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Manavadar Tax Cirlce-1(1), Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavpv6232E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/06/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/06/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Sets Of Orders; Two Dated 16.07.2003 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot In Ita Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & And Other Two Orders Dated 27.01.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad In Ita Nos. 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 132Section 158BSection 245F(2)Section 245HSection 269SSection 271D

During the pendency of the assessment proceeding consequent to search, the appellant filed a settlement application before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Mumbai on 23.05.2001. It is ITA Nos. 215/Rjt/2022 & 3 Ors. (Jamnadas R. Vikani vs. DCIT) - 3- relevant to mention that in response to show ... payment of interest ITA Nos. 215/Rjt/2022 & 3 Ors. (Jamnadas R. Vikani vs. DCIT) - 4- stating that the proceeding before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission had abated under Section 245HA of the Act since 31.07.2007. 9. Being aggrieved by and/or dissatisfied with the said order dated 28.05.2013 the appellant

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Lipi Finstock Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3608/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 245CSection 68

noted that many assessees of the Rockland Group of cases, including the assessee itself, had filed applications for settlement before the Income Tax Settlement Commission in March, 2014. The assessee appellant had filed an application in the capacity of a party “related to” certain other assessees of the Rockland Group ... person”. The A.O. also made addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of additional income reflected in its settlement application before the Income Tax Settlement Commission. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 20/06/2014, the assessee preferred an Appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) allowed the Appeal

Usv P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-C-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee and appeal filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 891/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Blem/S. Usv Private Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 5(2) Arvind Vitthal Gandhi Chowk 1908, 19Th Floor Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Aaacu1366N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle- 5(2) V. M/S. Usv Private Limited 1908, 19Th Floor Arvind Vitthal Gandhi Chowk Air India Building, Nariman Point Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Aaacu1366N

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 245CSection 35Section 37Section 37(1)

declaration of certain amount u/s. 132(4) of the Act. The Assessee, so as to avoid protracted litigation, filed a petition before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (“ITSC”), for AY 2011-12 to 2017-18 u/s. 245C of the Act requesting for settlement of its pending cases which petition

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurugram vs. Deepak Kumar, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1306/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Gurugram, Deepak Kumar, Haryana 122016 H.No. 13/2, Dlf Phase-1, Lower Vs. Ground Floor, Gurugram, Haryana Pan Aaapk 4112 D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri T. James Singson, Cit(Dr) For Assessee : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-34, New Delhi Dated 27.06.2019 For Ay 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows:- I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(4) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Us 271D Of The Act Relying On The Order Of The Hon 'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, cAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT(DR)
Section 269S

authorized representative (AR), supporting the first appellate order, submitted that the penalty was imposed by ignoring the fund flow statement submitted before income tax settlement commission by the M/s. Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd., which has provided cash fund to the assessee and the ld. CIT(A) considered the same

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Sums Exim Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result , ground no. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 860/JPR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Mundra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 153C

herewith. (b) Even the above finding have been confirmed by the revenue in the Confidential report submitted by the deptt to the Secretory, Income Tax Settlement Commission on 22.09.2017 (Kindly see paper book IV submitted on 09.10.2017 page no. 210 on the table where all the above findings appear ... 860/JP/2016 DCIT, CC-3,JAIPUR VS SUMS EXIM (P) LTD. in the Confidential report submitted by the dept to the Secretory, Income Tax Settlement Commission on 22.09.2017 (Kindly see paper book IV submitted on 09.10.2017 page no. 211 on the table where all the above findings appear). 4. Your honour