← 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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 4354/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Us, The Effective Issue To Be Decided In These Appeals Is As To Whether The Ld. Administrative Cit (Ld. Cit) Was Justified In Invoking Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S.263 Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case By Treating The Order Of The Ld. Ao As Erroneous In As Much As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

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) M/s. Siemens Ltd., which directed the ld. AO to examine 35 items. We find from the aforesaid list of dates and events and also

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 4353/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Us, The Effective Issue To Be Decided In These Appeals Is As To Whether The Ld. Administrative Cit (Ld. Cit) Was Justified In Invoking Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S.263 Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case By Treating The Order Of The Ld. Ao As Erroneous In As Much As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

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) M/s. Siemens Ltd., which directed the ld. AO to examine 35 items. We find from the aforesaid list of dates and events and also

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 4352/MUM/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Us, The Effective Issue To Be Decided In These Appeals Is As To Whether The Ld. Administrative Cit (Ld. Cit) Was Justified In Invoking Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S.263 Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case By Treating The Order Of The Ld. Ao As Erroneous In As Much As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

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) M/s. Siemens Ltd., which directed the ld. AO to examine 35 items. We find from the aforesaid list of dates and events and also

Joseph Mudaliar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, -CC 4 (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7199/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Sharma a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ajeya Kumar Ojha
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 234ASection 250

cost of improvement of Shop B1 at Mayur Tower. However same was offered by appellant as undisclosed income before income tax settlement commission for AY 2006-07 during A.Y. 2011-12. 5. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in making disallowance of interest of Rs.1 ... aforesaid capital loss, the assessee has, inter-alia, Joseph Mudaliar ITA No.7199/Mum./2019 claimed deduction on account of income declared before the Income Tax Settlement Commission amounting to Rs. 60,00,000. Accordingly, in order to verify the allowability of deduction, the assessee was asked to provide the details

S.Seetharaman, Madurai vs. PCIT-1, Madurai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in terms

ITA 1546/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1546/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Guru Bashyam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 245D(4)Section 263Section 269SSection 269T

Aggrieved, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Before us, the ld.Counsel for the assessee filed copy of the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission order in the assessee’s own case vide Settlement Application No.TN/CN 51/2019-20/60/IT dated 14.12.2020 u/s.245D(4) of the Act, wherein unexplained loans ... amounting to Rs.44,99,65,000/- has been considered and the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission accepted additional income Mr.S.Seetharaman :: 3 :: of Rs.11.87 Crs. on account of these cash deposits and the total deposits considered by the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission at Rs.24

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned AO is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1594/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj Seth, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Praveen Shekhar, DR
Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80G

also of the view that ITA no. 1539 & 1594/Mum/2019 Lodha Developers Ltd; A.Y. 15–16 this issue also arose in case of income tax settlement commission wherein the explanation of the assessee about allowability of interest expenditure has been accepted. ii. He upheld the findings of the learned assessing officer ... expenditure claimed by the assessee is held to be allowable, It is also to be mentioned here that during the proceedings before the Income Tax Settlement Commission, the AO had raised specific question in relation to claim on interest expenditure made by the appellant and reply was filed

Lodha Developers Ltd.(Successor to Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned AO is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1539/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj Seth, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Praveen Shekhar, DR
Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80G

also of the view that ITA no. 1539 & 1594/Mum/2019 Lodha Developers Ltd; A.Y. 15–16 this issue also arose in case of income tax settlement commission wherein the explanation of the assessee about allowability of interest expenditure has been accepted. ii. He upheld the findings of the learned assessing officer ... expenditure claimed by the assessee is held to be allowable, It is also to be mentioned here that during the proceedings before the Income Tax Settlement Commission, the AO had raised specific question in relation to claim on interest expenditure made by the appellant and reply was filed

Dy.CIT Central Cir-6(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Citra Properties Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 100/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Citra Properties Ltd., M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Income Tax, Central Circle-6(4), Connaught Place, Room No.1925, Vs. New Delhi – 110001 19Th Floor, Pan: Aadcc 0776B Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri K.C. Kanojiya, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153Section 245D(4)Section 68

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 Indiabulls Group entities which has been challenged before ... right in restricting the receipts from on-money to 35% of the total receipts, relying upon the order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission under section 245D(4) of the Income tax Act, 1961, dated 30.04.2019, without considering that the 16 entities of the Indiabulls Group

Dr. P. Dayananda Pai, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 150/BANG/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2005-06 Dr. P Dayananda Pai, Vs. Dcit, 10/1, Lakshminarayana Complex, Circle – 2(2), Palace Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 052. Pan : Abapp 4418 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. R. Ramakrishnan, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 9.12.2019 Of Cit(A)-11, Bengaluru, Relating To Ay 2005-06. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual. He Is Also Referred To As “Pdp” In This Order. He Is In The Business Of Real Estate For Over Four Decades. He Carried On Business Of Real Estate In His Individual Capacity. From Ay 95-96 He Transferred All The Rights In Properties Under Various Agreements To A Partnership Firm “M/S.P.Dayanand Pai”, Vide Deed Of Partnership Dated 1-4-1994. In This Firm Mr.P.Dayanand Pai & His Brother Mr.P.Satish & 9 Other Individuals Were Partners. Thereafter By A Deed Of Partnership Dated 9.6.2000 The Firm “M/S.P.Dayanada Pai” Merged Its Business With Another Partnership Firm “M/S.Canara Housing Development Company” (Hereinafter Page 2 Of 39

For Appellant: Shri. R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153Section 153A

which are based on factual documents. It may not be out of place to mention that the appellant had approached the income Tax Settlement Commission, Chennai for AY 2006-07 to 2011-12. The ITSC in para 8.1 of its order dated 27/03/2014 mentions that the entries in the Dummy ... Assessee has not been able to substantiate his claims with any documentary Page 22 of 39 evidence. The Assessee had approached the Income-tax Settlement Commission, Chennai for A.Y: 2006-07-to 2011-12. The ITSC in para 8.1 of its order mentions that the entries in the Dummy Tally

DCIT Central Cir-6(4), Mumbai vs. Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned Assessing Officer is partly allowed

ITA 496/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Indiabulls Housing Finance Tax, Limited Central Circle–6(4) M–62 & 63, Room No.1925, 19Th Floor, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, Vs. Air India Building, New Delhi 110 001 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci2612A Assessee By : Mr. Om Kandalkar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanjay V. Deshmukh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.06.2022

For Appellant: Mr. Om Kandalkar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay V. Deshmukh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

circumstances of the case and in law, whether the learned 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 16 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

Rashmi Infrastructure Developers Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3243/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15
Section 131Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 245D(1)Section 245D(4)Section 80I

Asst Year 2013-14 in respect of Rashmi Heights project. The assessee filed an application before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) on 2.2.2015. The ITSC vide its order u/s 245D(1) of the Act dated 11.2.2015 allowed the application to be proceeded with. The ITSC vide

Rashmi Infrastructure Developers Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT -3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3128/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2013-14
Section 131Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 245D(1)Section 245D(4)Section 80I

Asst Year 2013-14 in respect of Rashmi Heights project. The assessee filed an application before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) on 2.2.2015. The ITSC vide its order u/s 245D(1) of the Act dated 11.2.2015 allowed the application to be proceeded with. The ITSC vide

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Anand Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai

ITA 3823/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Singh
Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

calculation of the cash transactions are noted in the seized documents. 12. The Ld.DR also pointed out that Dalmia Group has approached the Income-tax Settlement Commission wherein the cash transactions arising out of the seized documents have been admitted by them. Further, the Settlement Commission has accepted the application ... Income-tax Act. The applications filed by Dalmia Group, the report of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Rule 9 of Income-tax Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules 1997 and the order passed by the Income-tax Settlement Commission have been placed on record in the Department's paper book

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Anand Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai

ITA 3822/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Singh
Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

calculation of the cash transactions are noted in the seized documents. 12. The Ld.DR also pointed out that Dalmia Group has approached the Income-tax Settlement Commission wherein the cash transactions arising out of the seized documents have been admitted by them. Further, the Settlement Commission has accepted the application ... Income-tax Act. The applications filed by Dalmia Group, the report of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Rule 9 of Income-tax Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules 1997 and the order passed by the Income-tax Settlement Commission have been placed on record in the Department's paper book

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Anand Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai

ITA 3821/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Singh
Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

calculation of the cash transactions are noted in the seized documents. 12. The Ld.DR also pointed out that Dalmia Group has approached the Income-tax Settlement Commission wherein the cash transactions arising out of the seized documents have been admitted by them. Further, the Settlement Commission has accepted the application ... Income-tax Act. The applications filed by Dalmia Group, the report of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Rule 9 of Income-tax Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules 1997 and the order passed by the Income-tax Settlement Commission have been placed on record in the Department's paper book

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Anand Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai

ITA 3820/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Singh
Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

calculation of the cash transactions are noted in the seized documents. 12. The Ld.DR also pointed out that Dalmia Group has approached the Income-tax Settlement Commission wherein the cash transactions arising out of the seized documents have been admitted by them. Further, the Settlement Commission has accepted the application ... Income-tax Act. The applications filed by Dalmia Group, the report of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Rule 9 of Income-tax Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules 1997 and the order passed by the Income-tax Settlement Commission have been placed on record in the Department's paper book

Dy CIT -CC-2(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. H.K. Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 733/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2022AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D(1)

order dated 25.02.2015, accepting the returned income. Later the assessee filed an application u/s. 245D(1) of the Act before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional bench Mumbai (ITSC) for the A.Y. 2012-13 to 2018-19 on 27.12.2019 disclosing the following incomes:- A.Y. Adhoc Further adhoc Total ... assessee is with regard to addition on account of additional income offered in application filed under section 245D(1) of the Act before Income Tax Settlement Commission. 11. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed an application in front of Settlement Commission u/s 245C

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

ITA 274/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D(1)

Rs.25,50,000/- on account of additional income offered in the application filed u/s. 245D(1) of the Act before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission. 3. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or delete in all the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 2. Briefly stated facts ... declaring total income of Rs.32,82,420/-, which was subjected to scrutiny. Subsequently, the assessee filed an application before Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) for A.Y. 2012-13 to 2018-19 on 27.12.2019 by disclosing following income: A.Y. Adhoc Further adhoc Total Disallowance disallowance Additional of Business

A.T. Trade Overseas P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC- 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 325/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blea.T. Trade Overseas Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Central Circle – 2(4) A-601 Cello Trihumph 802, 8Th Floor I.B. Patel Road, Goregaon (E) Pratishtha Bhavan Mumbai – 400063 Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Pan: Aacca7944A Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah Department By : Ms. Sailaja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Sailaja Rai
Section 132Section 245CSection 245D(1)Section 245HSection 68

account of additional income offered in the application filed u/s. 245D(1) of the Act before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that education cess on the tax payable on the assessed income was allowable as deduction while computing ... 245HA(3) under the Income Tax Act. It is therefore very clear that the provisions of Central Excise Settlement Commission and that for Income Tax settlement Commission are identical. Therefore, the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Maruti Fabrics although pertaining to Central Excise should

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 971/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

Jakhotia Plastics Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Jakhotia Polymers Pvt. Ltd. filed settlement applications u/s 245C(1) of the Act before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (“ITSC”). The assessee made a disclosure of additional income of Rs. 1,93,04,200/- for the A.Ys ... matter will also be prejudicial to his interest. The ld. AR also stated that in this matter there has been adjudication by the Income Tax Settlement Commission which was set-aside by the jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and, therefore, in all fairness the matters must be heard