← 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

Dr. Vedamurthy Maya, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Cricle 1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 1721/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)

pursuant to statutory notices issued u/s.153A/153C of the Act had obtained legal opinion to settle the case by preferring application before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC); and on the basis of the advice given by the Legal Consultant, the assessee’s had started acting upon it by preparing

Dr. Vedamurthy Maya, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Cricle 1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 1720/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)

pursuant to statutory notices issued u/s.153A/153C of the Act had obtained legal opinion to settle the case by preferring application before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC); and on the basis of the advice given by the Legal Consultant, the assessee’s had started acting upon it by preparing

Dr. Vedamurthy Maya, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Cricle 1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 1719/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)

pursuant to statutory notices issued u/s.153A/153C of the Act had obtained legal opinion to settle the case by preferring application before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC); and on the basis of the advice given by the Legal Consultant, the assessee’s had started acting upon it by preparing

Dr. Vedamurthy Maya, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Cricle 1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 1718/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)

pursuant to statutory notices issued u/s.153A/153C of the Act had obtained legal opinion to settle the case by preferring application before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC); and on the basis of the advice given by the Legal Consultant, the assessee’s had started acting upon it by preparing

Dr. Vedamurthy Maya, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Cricle 1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 1717/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)

pursuant to statutory notices issued u/s.153A/153C of the Act had obtained legal opinion to settle the case by preferring application before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC); and on the basis of the advice given by the Legal Consultant, the assessee’s had started acting upon it by preparing

Dr. Vedamurthy Maya, Chennai vs. ACIT, Cnetral Cricle 1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 1716/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)

pursuant to statutory notices issued u/s.153A/153C of the Act had obtained legal opinion to settle the case by preferring application before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC); and on the basis of the advice given by the Legal Consultant, the assessee’s had started acting upon it by preparing

Dr. Vedamurthy Maya, Chennai vs. ACIT, Cnetral Cricle 1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 1715/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)

pursuant to statutory notices issued u/s.153A/153C of the Act had obtained legal opinion to settle the case by preferring application before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC); and on the basis of the advice given by the Legal Consultant, the assessee’s had started acting upon it by preparing

Shri. Vedamurthy, Chennai vs. ACIT, Cnetral Cricle 1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 1714/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)

pursuant to statutory notices issued u/s.153A/153C of the Act had obtained legal opinion to settle the case by preferring application before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC); and on the basis of the advice given by the Legal Consultant, the assessee’s had started acting upon it by preparing

Shri. Vedamurthy, Chennai vs. ACIT, Cnetral Cricle 1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 1713/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)

pursuant to statutory notices issued u/s.153A/153C of the Act had obtained legal opinion to settle the case by preferring application before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC); and on the basis of the advice given by the Legal Consultant, the assessee’s had started acting upon it by preparing

Shri. Vedamurthy, Chennai vs. ACIT, Cnetral Cricle 1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 1712/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)

pursuant to statutory notices issued u/s.153A/153C of the Act had obtained legal opinion to settle the case by preferring application before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC); and on the basis of the advice given by the Legal Consultant, the assessee’s had started acting upon it by preparing

Shri. Vedamurthy, Chennai vs. ACIT, Cenatral Circle 1(4). Chennai, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 1711/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)

pursuant to statutory notices issued u/s.153A/153C of the Act had obtained legal opinion to settle the case by preferring application before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC); and on the basis of the advice given by the Legal Consultant, the assessee’s had started acting upon it by preparing

Mrs. Pranita P. Thakur, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward4(3), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.4704/M/2023 is partly allowed and ITA

ITA 4705/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Shreyash Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

under: Mrs. Pranita P. Thakur 4. The Ld. Counsel further referred to the proof of submission of the cash book before the Income Tax Settlement Commission as Annexure A, which is available on paper book page No. 20. Further the Ld. counsel relied on the decision of the Coordinate bench

Mrs. Pranita P Thakur, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward4(3), Thane

In the result, ITA No.4704/M/2023 is partly allowed and ITA

ITA 4704/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Shreyash Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

under: Mrs. Pranita P. Thakur 4. The Ld. Counsel further referred to the proof of submission of the cash book before the Income Tax Settlement Commission as Annexure A, which is available on paper book page No. 20. Further the Ld. counsel relied on the decision of the Coordinate bench

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Adam Smith Consultancy Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue being ITA

ITA 2248/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 245

Commission determined by the Department in the case of the appellant's Group Company ASAPL, contrary to the findings of the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission Interim Board for Settlement vide its order dated 28,02.2023 u/s 245D(4) of the Act relating to Unbooked Commission in the case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/S Snw Smith Consultants Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue being ITA

ITA 2245/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 245

Commission determined by the Department in the case of the appellant's Group Company ASAPL, contrary to the findings of the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission Interim Board for Settlement vide its order dated 28,02.2023 u/s 245D(4) of the Act relating to Unbooked Commission in the case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Snw Smith Consultants Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue being ITA

ITA 2244/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 245

Commission determined by the Department in the case of the appellant's Group Company ASAPL, contrary to the findings of the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission Interim Board for Settlement vide its order dated 28,02.2023 u/s 245D(4) of the Act relating to Unbooked Commission in the case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/S Snw Smith Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue being ITA

ITA 2243/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 245

Commission determined by the Department in the case of the appellant's Group Company ASAPL, contrary to the findings of the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission Interim Board for Settlement vide its order dated 28,02.2023 u/s 245D(4) of the Act relating to Unbooked Commission in the case

DCIT Central Circle-06, New Delhi vs. Santosh Trust, New Delhi

ITA 1427/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh K. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Shah, CIT, DR
Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 80G(5)(iv)

demand outstanding and in that respect the appellant had move petition for settlement of dispute u/s 245C of IT Act before the Income Tax Settlement Commission. The Commission vide order us 245D(4) dt: 27.11.2015 settled the pending disputes. The final demand of tax was communicated to the appellant vide ... Delhi through which the appellant was directed to make payment quarterly as per schedule of payment forming part of order of Income Tax Settlement Commission passed us 245D(4) of IT Act. i. The appellant's Tax demands post passing of the order by the Hon'ble ITSC w/s 245D

Ratnakar Manikrao Gutte, Gangakhed vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 6106/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant& Shri Pawan Singhit(Ss)A No. 60/Mum/2025 (Ay: 2013-14) (Hybridhearing)

Section 254(1)Section 69B

60/Mum/2025 Vijay Ratnakar Gutte Ratnakar Manikrao Gutte Engineers Private Limted owned up the alleged cash and filed application before Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC), Mumbai and accepted that such amount belongs to Sunil Hitech Engineers, however, their application was rejected for technical reason. The additional evidence which was essential

Income Tax Officer- 6(2), Lucknow vs. M/S. Status Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 403/LKW/2020[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow13 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.403/Lkw/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer-6(2) 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, P. K. Complex, 3Rd Floor, Lucknow-226001. V. M/S. Status Vyapaar Pvt Ltd 24, Eldico Greens, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pan:Arvpm1497R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कि और से/Appellant By: Shri Raghunath Mishra, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कि और से /Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Order Per Anadee Nath Misshra, Am.: This Appeal, By The Revenue, Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Lucknow Dated 24.09.2020, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. Whether On The Facts Of Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Erred In Restricting The Addition Of Rs.6,34,00,000/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Unexplained Credit U/S 68 Of The Act To Commission Income Calculated At 1% Without Appreciating That The Assessee Had Failed To Furnish Satisfactory Explanation With Regard To Identify Of The Parties, Source & Genuineness Of The Transaction 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend Any One Or More Of The Grounds Of Appeal As & When Need To Doing So Arises With The Prior Permission Of The Court.” 2. In This Case, Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2019 Was Passed By The Assessing Officer Whereby The Assessee'S Total Income Was Assessed At Rs.6,34,42,150/-. Thereafter, During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted That There Were Total Credit Entries Of Rs.9.84 Crores & Matching Debit

For Appellant: Shri Raghunath Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 150Section 68

related to Mahesh Chandra Agarwal Group which was routed through assess company and the same amount has been surrendered before Hon'ble ITSC (Income Tax Settlement Commission) by Mahesh Chandra Agarwal Group Further Mahesh Chandra Agarwal Group taken over management of the company in April 2012. Necessary enquiry was made