← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Bhilai vs. Mesers Abis Poultry Private Limited, Rajnandgaon

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 234/RPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.233 & 234/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010 & 2011-2012) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Abis Poultry Private Limited, Baldeo Bag, Rajnandgaon Pan No. :Aaeca 87411 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain & Gagan Tiwari, Advs. &For Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

addition of Rs. 2.05 Crore. It was further argued, that the assessee company did not file any application before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC). As in the decision, Hon’ble ITSC has decided in each and every case separately of the ABIS group, who all had filed ... assesse company and also a party covered under search. The said share applicant company, FHMPL had filed an, application before Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (lTSC) to settle the income, therefore the identity of the FMPHl was proved beyond any doubt. The bank statement and bank book of FHMPL

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Bhilai vs. Mesers Abis Poultry Private Limited, Rajnandgaon

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 233/RPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.233 & 234/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010 & 2011-2012) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Abis Poultry Private Limited, Baldeo Bag, Rajnandgaon Pan No. :Aaeca 87411 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain & Gagan Tiwari, Advs. &For Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

addition of Rs. 2.05 Crore. It was further argued, that the assessee company did not file any application before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC). As in the decision, Hon’ble ITSC has decided in each and every case separately of the ABIS group, who all had filed ... assesse company and also a party covered under search. The said share applicant company, FHMPL had filed an, application before Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (lTSC) to settle the income, therefore the identity of the FMPHl was proved beyond any doubt. The bank statement and bank book of FHMPL

Udai Karan Dalal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Central Circle-31, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical

ITA 1674/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1673/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Deep Karan Dalal Dcit, 21, Mla Flats, Sector 3, Vs. Central Circle-31, Chandigarh - 160010 New Delhi. (Formerly Ito, Ward 1(3), Chandigarh) Pan No. Ajypd2534K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1674/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Udai Karan Dalal Dcit, 21, Mla Flats, Sector 3, Vs. Central Circle-31, Chandigarh - 160010 New Delhi.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

I.T.A.Nos.1673 & 1674/Del/2022 The case of M/s. Angad & Sons Realcon Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2008-09 to 2018-19 is pending before the Income Tax Settlement Commission and is sub-judice (Copy of order u/s 245D(1) by Income Tax Settlement Commission allowing the case to be proceeded with ... Before the Id. CIT(A) the appellant had prayed for keeping the proceedings in abeyance till such time that the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission takes a view in the case of M/s. Angad & Sons Realcon Pvt. Ltd. since the order of the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission

Deep Karan Dalal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT Central Circle 31, Ara Central E-2 Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical

ITA 1673/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1673/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Deep Karan Dalal Dcit, 21, Mla Flats, Sector 3, Vs. Central Circle-31, Chandigarh - 160010 New Delhi. (Formerly Ito, Ward 1(3), Chandigarh) Pan No. Ajypd2534K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1674/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Udai Karan Dalal Dcit, 21, Mla Flats, Sector 3, Vs. Central Circle-31, Chandigarh - 160010 New Delhi.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

I.T.A.Nos.1673 & 1674/Del/2022 The case of M/s. Angad & Sons Realcon Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2008-09 to 2018-19 is pending before the Income Tax Settlement Commission and is sub-judice (Copy of order u/s 245D(1) by Income Tax Settlement Commission allowing the case to be proceeded with ... Before the Id. CIT(A) the appellant had prayed for keeping the proceedings in abeyance till such time that the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission takes a view in the case of M/s. Angad & Sons Realcon Pvt. Ltd. since the order of the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurugram vs. Platinum Towers P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s application under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7714/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

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 case of Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd. and referring to that order, he mentioned that the ITSC has held

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre-Circle-6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Rajiv Ratan, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 1434/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Dcit, Cc -6(4), Vs. Shri Rajiv Rattan Room No. 1925, 19 Th Floor, 60, 2 Nd Floor, Vasant Marg, Air India Building, Vasant Vihar, Nariman Point, New Delhi - 110057 Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aespr3957D Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 126/Mum/2022 (A.Y.2011-12) Shri Rajiv Rattan Vs. The Dcit, Cc -6(4), 60, 2 Nd Floor, Vasant Marg, Room No. 1925, 19 Th Floor, Vasant Vihar, Air India Building, New Delhi - 110057 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aespr3957D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Riddhi Mishra Respondent By : Meet Shah

For Appellant: Smt. Riddhi MishraFor Respondent: Meet Shah
Section 153CSection 245D(4)

circumstances of the case, whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission under section 245D(4) of the Income tax Act. 1961, dated in the case of 16 other Indiabulls Group entities which has been challenged before ... Cash Transaction Record has been offered by the 16 entities of the Indiabulls Group, which had filed applications before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission, without quantifying and identifying, which of the 16 entities, who were before the Hon'ble Income tax Settlement Commission offered the income relevant

Yogesh Mehra, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 709/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhyogesh Mehra Vs. Pcit-2 201, Hare Krishna Room No. 1920, Building, Presidency Air India Building, Society, North South Mumbai - 400021 Road No. 8, Jvpd, Vile Parle, (West), Mumbai – 400049 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaapm6139N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishita MandalagwalaFor Respondent: Heman Kumar Chimanlal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(c)Section 2(22)(e)Section 245CSection 245D(4)Section 263

assessee filed before the settlement commission was rejected u/s 245D(4) of the Act on 29.06.2016. As per computation income filed before the Income Tax settlement commission assessee has shown total income of Rs.1,94,62,640/-. Since the assessee had failed to file the return of ITA No.709/Mum/2022 A.Y.2014-15 ... Yogesh Mehra Vs PCIT-2 income for AY 2014-15 and assessee’s application was rejected by the Income Tax Settlement Commission, therefore notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued that income declared in the computation of income has escaped. In response the assessee filed return of income

Asstt. CIT - 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Global Holding Corporation P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 577/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-1(1)(1), M/S Global Holding 579, Aayakar Bhavan, Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. M.K. Road, 201A, Janmbhoomi Chambers, Mumbai-400020. 29 Walchand Hirachand, Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038. Pan No. Aaacn 8301 L Appellant Respondent : Revenue By Mr. Rakesh Garg, Cit-Dr : Assessee By Mr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Neelam Jadhav, Ar : Date Of Hearing 11/10/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022

For Respondent: Revenue by Mr. Rakesh Garg, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 245D(6)

initiated on GTL Group Group on 28.09.2010. Further, the assessee filed . Further, the assessee filed application before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission, before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission, before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission, Bombay Bench who vide order u/s. 245D(6) of Bombay

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahavir Build Estate Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1405/MUM/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2009-2010
For Appellant: Shri Gunajjan KakkadFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Somaiya
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

entities. It shall not be out of place to mention here that the assessee group has made a disclosure before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission, Mumbai, of undisclosed ITA. No. 1405/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2009-10 income arising out of transactions with and by various group entities which

Siemens Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4355/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-05
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 245CSection 245D(1)Section 245D(3)Section 245D(4)Section 263

245D(3) of the Act. 5 10.09.2007 The then CIT thereafter filed reports before the & Settlement Commission under rule 9 of the 21.09.2007 Income-tax Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1997(the Settlement Commission Rules). In the said reports, a request was made to the Settlement Commission to consider various other ... termed as erroneous at all as he had originally passed the order in accordance with the directions of the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) which directed the ld. AO to examine 35 items. We find from the aforesaid list of dates and events and also from the paper

M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd(Successsor to Sahajanand Hi-Tech Construction Pvt.Ltd), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.CC-7(3)., Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1754/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Smt. Mahita NairFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth
Section 143(3)

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)-49 erred in upholding disallowance based on the order passed by Income Tax Settlement Commission ('ITSC') for A.Y. 2012-13 whereas the instant case is for A.Y. 2014-15. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case ... learned CIT(A)-49 erred in upholding disallowing based on the order passed by Income Tax Settlement Commission ('ITSC'), without appreciating the fact that the disallowance was based on non-submission of concrete evidence whereas in the instant case all the documentary evidence like copy of letter of appointment, copy

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre-Circle-6(4), Mumbai-400021 vs. Shri Saurabh Mittal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1435/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh,Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1435/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri. Saurabh Mittal A-19, House No.A-01, A-32, Income Tax, Centre- Westend, New Delhi-110 021 Circle-6(4) बिधम/ Room No. 1925, 19Th Vs. Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Anapm2488D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.334 & 333/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Shri. Saurabh Kumar Deputy Commissioner Of Mittal Income Tax, Centre-Circle- Room No.543, 5Th Floor, बिधम/ 6(4) Ayankar Bhavan, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Vs. M.K.Road, Air India Building, Nariman Mumbai-400 020. Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Anapm2488D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Joshi, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. A. B. Koli, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 25.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Joshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri. A. B. Koli, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 3Section 69A

circumstances of the case, whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in relying upon the decision of the Hon;ble Income Tax Settlement Commission under section 3 I.T.A. No. 1435/Mum/2022 and Others Shri Saurabh Mittal 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 30.04.2019, in the case ... Cash Transaction Record has been offered by the 16 entities of the Indiabulls Group, which had filed applications before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission, without quantifying and identifying, which of the 16 entities, who were before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission offered the income relevant

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre-Circle-6(4), Mumbai 400021 vs. Indiabull Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1433/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M Balaganeshआअसुं.१४१४/म ुं/२०२२ (धि.ि. २०१३-१४) ..... अपीलाथी /Appellant Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 6 (4), Room No. 1925, 19Th Flr. Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 बिाम Vs. ..... प्रधििादी/Respondent Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited M-62 & 63, First Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110 001 Pan No. Aabci3612A आअसुं.१४३३/म ुं/२०२२ (धि.ि. २०११-१२) ..... अपीलाथी /Appellant Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 6 (4), Room No. 1925, 19Th Flr. Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 बिाम Vs. ..... प्रधििादी/Respondent Indiabulls Financial Services Limited M-62 & 63, First Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110 001 Pan No. Aaaci8570Q अपीलाथी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri. Dharamvir D. Yadav, Sr. Ar प्रधििादी द्वारा/Respondent By : Shri. K. Gopal, Advocate स ििाई की धिधथ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2022 घोषणा की धिधथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Appellant: Shri. Dharamvir D. Yadav, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri. K. Gopal, Advocate
Section 245D(4)Section 37(1)

circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Teurond CIT(A) is justified in relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission under section 245D(4) of the Income tax Act, 1961, dated 30.04.2019, in the case of le other Indiabulls Group entities which ... Cash Transaction Record has been offered by the 16 entities of the Indiabulls Group, which had filed applications before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission, without quantifying and identifying which of the 16 entities, who were before the Hon'ble Income tax Settlement Commission offered the income relevant

DCIT- CC- 6(4), Mumbai vs. Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1414/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M Balaganeshआअसुं.१४१४/म ुं/२०२२ (धि.ि. २०१३-१४) ..... अपीलाथी /Appellant Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 6 (4), Room No. 1925, 19Th Flr. Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 बिाम Vs. ..... प्रधििादी/Respondent Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited M-62 & 63, First Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110 001 Pan No. Aabci3612A आअसुं.१४३३/म ुं/२०२२ (धि.ि. २०११-१२) ..... अपीलाथी /Appellant Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 6 (4), Room No. 1925, 19Th Flr. Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 बिाम Vs. ..... प्रधििादी/Respondent Indiabulls Financial Services Limited M-62 & 63, First Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110 001 Pan No. Aaaci8570Q अपीलाथी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri. Dharamvir D. Yadav, Sr. Ar प्रधििादी द्वारा/Respondent By : Shri. K. Gopal, Advocate स ििाई की धिधथ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2022 घोषणा की धिधथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Appellant: Shri. Dharamvir D. Yadav, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri. K. Gopal, Advocate
Section 245D(4)Section 37(1)

circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Teurond CIT(A) is justified in relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission under section 245D(4) of the Income tax Act, 1961, dated 30.04.2019, in the case of le other Indiabulls Group entities which ... Cash Transaction Record has been offered by the 16 entities of the Indiabulls Group, which had filed applications before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission, without quantifying and identifying which of the 16 entities, who were before the Hon'ble Income tax Settlement Commission offered the income relevant

Sangeetkumar Sawarmal Hisaria, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 785/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2011-12
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

Long term capital gains shown by the assessee. (b) Addition made on the basis of information found in the application filed before Income tax Settlement Commission. (c) Charging of Education cess. 26. The first issue relates to the addition of sale consideration of Rs.4.85 crores received on sale of shares

Dy CIT-CC-2(4), Mumbai vs. Late Shri Sawarmal Hisaria Through L/H Sandeep Hisaria, Mumbai

ITA 1042/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

filed by the assessee for AY 2017-18, wherein following issues are contested:- (a) Addition made on the basis of application filed with Income tax Settlement Commission. (b) Claim for deduction of Education Cess. 17. The first issue contested by the assessee relates to the addition of Rs.25.00 lakhs made ... relying on the application filed before Income tax Settlement Commission. We notice that an identical issue has been examined by the co-ordinate bench in the case of A.T Trade Overseas P Ltd vs. DCIT (ITA No.325/Mum/2021 dated 23.03.2022) and it has been decided in favour of the assessee

DCIT, Central CIT-2(4), Chennai vs. A Gandhimathi, Kancheepuram

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 15/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.13-15/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner Of- V. Smt. A. Gandhimathi, Income Tax, Prop: East West Gandhimathi Central Circle-2(4), Combined Industries, Investigation Building, Survey No.503/2A2A, Chennai. Mambakkam Salai, Echankadu, Kayar, Kancheepuram District. [Pan: Agupa 2409 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.Guru Bashyam, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr.Philip George, Adv. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2022

For Appellant: Mr.Philip George, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Guru Bashyam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 158B

fact remains that no addition on this regard was made in the assessment of M/s.BGAL, which is evident from the order of Income Tax Settlement Commission, where the application filed by the assessee has been accepted without making any addition towards purchases. From the above, it is very clear that

DCIT, Central CIT-2(4), Chennai vs. A Gandhimathi, Kancheepuram

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 14/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.13-15/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner Of- V. Smt. A. Gandhimathi, Income Tax, Prop: East West Gandhimathi Central Circle-2(4), Combined Industries, Investigation Building, Survey No.503/2A2A, Chennai. Mambakkam Salai, Echankadu, Kayar, Kancheepuram District. [Pan: Agupa 2409 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.Guru Bashyam, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr.Philip George, Adv. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2022

For Appellant: Mr.Philip George, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Guru Bashyam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 158B

fact remains that no addition on this regard was made in the assessment of M/s.BGAL, which is evident from the order of Income Tax Settlement Commission, where the application filed by the assessee has been accepted without making any addition towards purchases. From the above, it is very clear that

DCIT, Central CIT-2(4), Chennai vs. A Gandhimathi, Kancheepuram

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 13/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.13-15/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner Of- V. Smt. A. Gandhimathi, Income Tax, Prop: East West Gandhimathi Central Circle-2(4), Combined Industries, Investigation Building, Survey No.503/2A2A, Chennai. Mambakkam Salai, Echankadu, Kayar, Kancheepuram District. [Pan: Agupa 2409 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.Guru Bashyam, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr.Philip George, Adv. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2022

For Appellant: Mr.Philip George, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Guru Bashyam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 158B

fact remains that no addition on this regard was made in the assessment of M/s.BGAL, which is evident from the order of Income Tax Settlement Commission, where the application filed by the assessee has been accepted without making any addition towards purchases. From the above, it is very clear that

Dy.CIT Cent. Cir 6(4), Mumbai vs. Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 99/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyaldy.Cit, Cc-6(4), Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ...... Appellant Vs. India Bulls Financial Services Ltd. M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan: Aaaci8570Q ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. K.C. Kanojiya, Cit-Dr Respondent By : Sh. K. Gopal, Adv. Sh. Om Kandalkar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 20.10.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. K.C. Kanojiya, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sh. K. Gopal, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 250Section 69C

circumstances of the case, whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission under section 245D(4) of the Income tax Act, 1961, dated 30.04.2019. in the case of 16 other India bulls Group entities which has been challenged ... Cash Transaction Record has been offered by the 16 entities of the India bulls Group, which had filed applications before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission, without quantifying and identifying, which of the 16 entities, who were before the Hon'ble Income tax Settlement Commission offered the income relevant