← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cirlce -3, Coimbatore vs. P.P. Constructions, Karur

ITA 2531/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 Mr. P. Palanisamy, 390, P.P. Nilayam, 9Th Main I Cross, Hal Ii Stage, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru-560 038. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan:Adspp 9150 F] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (प्रत्यायोजित/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.219, 220, 221 & 222/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.200, 201 To 208/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2011-12 To 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3388 To 3392/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 M/S. P.P. Financers, 24, Radha Avenue, 3Rd Street, Valsaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan:Aahfp 0288 L] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (प्रत्यायोजित/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.215 To 218 & 223/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19 & 2014-15 Mr. P. Kuppuchamy, No.80/7, 17Th Cross, 16Th Main Road, Btm Layout, Ns Palya, Bangaluru-560 076. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore.

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' यायपीठ, चेनई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरी, न्यायिक

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cirlce -3, Coimbatore vs. P P Enterprises, Bengaluru

ITA 2530/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cirlce -3, Coimbatore vs. P P Enterprises, Bengaluru

ITA 2529/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’सी’ यायपीठ, चेनई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cirlce -3, Coimbatore vs. P P Enterprises, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee and department are

ITA 2528/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 नधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 नधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 Mr. P. Palanisamy, 390, P.P. Nilayam, 9Th Main I Cross, Hal Ii Stage, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru-560 038. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan:Adspp 9150 F] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.219, 220, 221 & 222/Chny/2025 नधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.200, 201 To 208/Chny/2025 नधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2011-12 To 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3388 To 3392/Chny/2024 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 M/S. P.P. Financers, 24, Radha Avenue, 3Rd Street, Valsaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan: Aahfp 0288 L] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.215 To 218 & 223/Chny/2025 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19 & 2014-15 Mr. P. Kuppuchamy, No.80/7, 17Th Cross, 16Th Main Road, Btm Layout, Ns Palya, Bangaluru-560 076. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore.

Section 153C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’सी’ यायपीठ, चेनई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरी, न्यायिक

Amplex Projects Private Limited, Agartala vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle Silchar, Silchar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 333/GTY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

For Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT
Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245DSection 245D(4)Section 250

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) wrongly assumed that the order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission dated 26/12/2017 states that the share capital addition of Rs.2,93,00,000/- for the AY 2013-14 was not addressed by the Commission since ... Further, as regards the reliance placed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission, dated 26/12/2017, in upholding the addition for the relevant assessment year, it is submitted that it is an undisputed fact that in the instant case regular assessment

DCIT, Central Cir-2(4), Chennai vs. D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 94/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

agricultural income, would be exempt from tax. To support the same, the assessee took support of the order passed by Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) in the case of Shri G.Rajendran. On the issue of receipt of Rs.20.00 Crores, the assessee, in the alternative, stated that the amount

DCIT, Central Cir-2(4), Chennai vs. D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 93/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

agricultural income, would be exempt from tax. To support the same, the assessee took support of the order passed by Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) in the case of Shri G.Rajendran. On the issue of receipt of Rs.20.00 Crores, the assessee, in the alternative, stated that the amount

DCIT, Central Cir-2(4), Chennai vs. D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 92/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

agricultural income, would be exempt from tax. To support the same, the assessee took support of the order passed by Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) in the case of Shri G.Rajendran. On the issue of receipt of Rs.20.00 Crores, the assessee, in the alternative, stated that the amount

DCIT, Central Cir-2(4), Chennai vs. D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 91/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

agricultural income, would be exempt from tax. To support the same, the assessee took support of the order passed by Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) in the case of Shri G.Rajendran. On the issue of receipt of Rs.20.00 Crores, the assessee, in the alternative, stated that the amount

D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Cir-3(3), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3344/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

agricultural income, would be exempt from tax. To support the same, the assessee took support of the order passed by Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) in the case of Shri G.Rajendran. On the issue of receipt of Rs.20.00 Crores, the assessee, in the alternative, stated that the amount

D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Cir-3(3), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3343/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

agricultural income, would be exempt from tax. To support the same, the assessee took support of the order passed by Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) in the case of Shri G.Rajendran. On the issue of receipt of Rs.20.00 Crores, the assessee, in the alternative, stated that the amount

D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Cir-3(3), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3342/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

agricultural income, would be exempt from tax. To support the same, the assessee took support of the order passed by Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) in the case of Shri G.Rajendran. On the issue of receipt of Rs.20.00 Crores, the assessee, in the alternative, stated that the amount

DCIT, Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai vs. Sunil Bhagwatlal Dalal, Mumbai

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and

ITA 4047/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang&

Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

reopened on the basis of fresh information regarding cash loans given to M/s Radius Estates Developers Put. Ltd. was received by Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission. Page |3 ITA No. 4046, 4047/Mum/2025 CO No. 213, 214/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2015-16, 2016-17 Sunil Bhagwatlal Dalal, Mumbai On the facts ... assessment is based on change of opinion, ignoring the fact that Affidavit, filed by Shri Sanjay Chhabria before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission, admitting of receiving cash loans from the assessee was a fresh material which was considered for reopening of the case for assessment. On the facts

DCIT, Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai vs. Sunil Bhagwatlal Dalal, Mumbai

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and

ITA 4046/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang&

Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

reopened on the basis of fresh information regarding cash loans given to M/s Radius Estates Developers Put. Ltd. was received by Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission. Page |3 ITA No. 4046, 4047/Mum/2025 CO No. 213, 214/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2015-16, 2016-17 Sunil Bhagwatlal Dalal, Mumbai On the facts ... assessment is based on change of opinion, ignoring the fact that Affidavit, filed by Shri Sanjay Chhabria before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission, admitting of receiving cash loans from the assessee was a fresh material which was considered for reopening of the case for assessment. On the facts

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Patil Construction and Infrastucture Limited., Mumbai

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

ITA 5908/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Akash Kumar (vritually appear), CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 801ASection 80I

Sheri works order no. 10238 12. It was submitted that a detailed note in respect of claim u/s 801A was filed before the Income Tax Settlement Commission which was duly accepted after considering the legal position in this respect. It was argued that once the benefit of section 801A ... acted as a contractor and not a developer. 6.1. Ld. DR had further, argued that ld. AO simply relied on the order of Income Tax Settlement Commission for AY 2012-13. He thus, submitted that nature of projects executed differ from year to year and, therefore, eligibility for deduction

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Patil Construction and Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 5907/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Akash Kumar (vritually appear), CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 801ASection 80I

Sheri works order no. 10238 12. It was submitted that a detailed note in respect of claim u/s 801A was filed before the Income Tax Settlement Commission which was duly accepted after considering the legal position in this respect. It was argued that once the benefit of section 801A ... acted as a contractor and not a developer. 6.1. Ld. DR had further, argued that ld. AO simply relied on the order of Income Tax Settlement Commission for AY 2012-13. He thus, submitted that nature of projects executed differ from year to year and, therefore, eligibility for deduction

Jamnadas Purshotam Patel, Rajkot vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Center-1, Rajkot

ITA 60/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 250

this, ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of Amrapali Fincap Ltd. V/s Income Tax Settlement Commission [2016] 73 taxmann.com 97 wherein it is held that "Where Settlement Commission denied assessee for cross-examination of different witnesses, whose statements were recorded ... this, ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of Amrapali Fincap Ltd. V/s Income Tax Settlement Commission [2016] 73 taxmann.com 97 wherein it is held that "Where Settlement Commission denied assessee for cross-examination of different witnesses, whose statements were recorded

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(3), Mumbai vs. Upl Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds

ITA 4437/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245Section 254(1)

chemicals, agro based products. A search action was carried out on assessee group on 22.01.2020. Consequent upon search action, the assessee approached the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC). The assessee filed application under section 245C(1) on 27.04.2016 for settlement of tax liability ... assessee was accepted by ITSC and final order dated 13.10.2017 was passed under section 245D(4). While giving effect to the order of Income Tax Settlement Commission, the assessment order was passed by assessing officer vide order dated 13.11.20217 in accepting income of assessee at Rs. 381.06 Crore, which

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(3), Mumbai vs. Upl Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds

ITA 4436/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245Section 254(1)

chemicals, agro based products. A search action was carried out on assessee group on 22.01.2020. Consequent upon search action, the assessee approached the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC). The assessee filed application under section 245C(1) on 27.04.2016 for settlement of tax liability ... assessee was accepted by ITSC and final order dated 13.10.2017 was passed under section 245D(4). While giving effect to the order of Income Tax Settlement Commission, the assessment order was passed by assessing officer vide order dated 13.11.20217 in accepting income of assessee at Rs. 381.06 Crore, which

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-30, New Delhi vs. Priyank Sukhija Cafe Concept Private Limited, New Delhi

ITA 2107/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 153C

allowing the appeal of the assessee despite the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Gupta Perfumers (P) Ltd. vs Income Tax Settlement Commission in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4368 of 2010 wherein it was held that the Income Tax Department must tax the right person