← All Phrases

“settlement application”

Settlement & AmnestySection 245CSection 245C247 judgments

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2577/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

returned income as pointed out therein, i.e. the special audit report.\n\n13. It is seen that the assessee had filed a settlement application u/s.245C(1) of the Act along with M/s.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd (Specified Person) and the assessee's wife, Smt.Jothi Narayanan before the Settlement commission ... settlement application No.TN/CN51/2020-21/17-IT on 05.01.2021 for the A.Y. 2012-13 to 2018-19.\n\n14. However, the Settlement commission vide their order dated 19.01.2021 passed u/s.245D(1) of the Act had rejected the settlement application filed by the assessee for the reason that M/s. Annai Builders Real Estate

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2576/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

additions to the returned income as pointed out therein, i.e. the special audit report. 12. It is seen that the assessee had filed a settlement application u/s.245C(1) of the Act along with M/s.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd (Specified Person) and the assessee’s wife, Smt.Jothi Narayanan before ... Settlement commission in settlement application No.TN/CN51/2020-21/17-IT on 05.01.2021 for the A.Y. 2012-13 to 2018-19. :-5-: ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 13. However, the Settlement commission vide their order dated 19.01.2021 passed u/s.245D(1) of the Act had rejected the settlement application filed

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2575/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

additions to the returned income as pointed out therein, i.e. the special audit report. 12. It is seen that the assessee had filed a settlement application u/s.245C(1) of the Act along with M/s.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd (Specified Person) and the assessee’s wife, Smt.Jothi Narayanan before ... Settlement commission in settlement application No.TN/CN51/2020-21/17-IT on 05.01.2021 for the A.Y. 2012-13 to 2018-19. :-5-: ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 13. However, the Settlement commission vide their order dated 19.01.2021 passed u/s.245D(1) of the Act had rejected the settlement application filed

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2574/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

additions to the returned income as pointed out therein, i.e. the special audit report. 12. It is seen that the assessee had filed a settlement application u/s.245C(1) of the Act along with M/s.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd (Specified Person) and the assessee’s wife, Smt.Jothi Narayanan before ... Settlement commission in settlement application No.TN/CN51/2020-21/17-IT on 05.01.2021 for the A.Y. 2012-13 to 2018-19. :-5-: ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 13. However, the Settlement commission vide their order dated 19.01.2021 passed u/s.245D(1) of the Act had rejected the settlement application filed

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2573/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

additions to the returned income as pointed out therein, i.e. the special audit report. 12. It is seen that the assessee had filed a settlement application u/s.245C(1) of the Act along with M/s.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd (Specified Person) and the assessee’s wife, Smt.Jothi Narayanan before ... Settlement commission in settlement application No.TN/CN51/2020-21/17-IT on 05.01.2021 for the A.Y. 2012-13 to 2018-19. :-5-: ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 13. However, the Settlement commission vide their order dated 19.01.2021 passed u/s.245D(1) of the Act had rejected the settlement application filed

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2571/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

additions to the returned income as pointed out therein, i.e. the special audit report. 12. It is seen that the assessee had filed a settlement application u/s.245C(1) of the Act along with M/s.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd (Specified Person) and the assessee’s wife, Smt.Jothi Narayanan before ... Settlement commission in settlement application No.TN/CN51/2020-21/17-IT on 05.01.2021 for the A.Y. 2012-13 to 2018-19. :-5-: ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 13. However, the Settlement commission vide their order dated 19.01.2021 passed u/s.245D(1) of the Act had rejected the settlement application filed

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2570/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

additions to the returned income as pointed out therein, i.e. the special audit report.\n12. It is seen that the assessee had filed a settlement application u/s.245C(1) of the Act along with M/s.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd (Specified Person) and the assessee's wife, Smt.Jothi Narayanan before ... Settlement commission in settlement application No.TN/CN51/2020-21/17-IT on 05.01.2021 for the A.Y. 2012-13 to 2018-19.\n:-5-:\nITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571,\n2573 to 2577/Chny/2025\n13. However, the Settlement commission vide their order dated 19.01.2021 passed u/s.245D(1) of the Act had rejected the settlement application filed

JOTHI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2569/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

returned income as pointed out therein, i.e. the special audit report.\n\n12.\nIt is seen that the assessee had filed a settlement application u/s.245C(1) of the Act along with M/s.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd (Specified Person) and the assessee's wife, Smt.Jothi Narayanan before the Settlement commission ... settlement application No.TN/CN51/2020-21/17-IT on 05.01.2021 for the A.Y. 2012-13 to 2018-19.\n\n13.\nHowever, the Settlement commission vide their order dated 19.01.2021 passed u/s.245D(1) of the Act had rejected the settlement application filed by the assessee for the reason that M/s. Annai Builders Real Estate

SHRI SAURIN SHAH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE ASHOK DAMODAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1813/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 69A

evidence was found in the course of search regarding payment of any on-money by the assessee. Merely because NODPL had admitted in its settlement application that on-money was received by it, it does not establish that the assessee had paid on-money in respect of acquisition of property

EKESH GAURANG DESAI,MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 6116/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarekesh Gaurang Desai Vs Acit Central Circle -1(1), Mumbai C-46, Pandurang Chs, A.B. 321, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nair Road Near Juhu Post Mumbai 400020 Office, Juhu Mumbai-400049 Pan:Aibpd4569L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dharangandhi, Adv & Ms. Vinita Nara Adv Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/02/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-47, Mumbai [For Brevity ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2011-12, Date Of Order 28.07.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Ld. Income-Tax Officer Ward-22(1)(2), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri DharanGandhi, Adv & Ms. Vinita Nara AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

premises of loan creditor, Shri Anand P. Nair and finally the loan creditor Shri Anand P. Nair filed the application in settlement commission bearing settlement application no. MH/MUCC-I/067/2013-14/IT and the said loan-creditor had declared the additional income amount of Rs.4,98,50,000/- related

RAJU BABABHAI DESAI ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2051/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 250Section 68

said Bank A/cs is owned up by Sanjay Shah during the Investigation proceedings and has offered the income arising from such transactions in his settlement application filed before the Hon'ble Settlement Application for which IBS 1 New Delhi has already passed the order u/s. 245D

ACIT CIRCLE-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD , DHANBAD

ITA 302/RAN/2017[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

company. It was submission that\njust because there was a search on Shri LB Singh and his brothers and\nthey had filed a settlement application wherein they have disclosed 98%\nincome for the assessment year 2011-12 and 78.43% for the assessment\nyear 2012-13, the AO has treated

ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD , DHANBAD

ITA 300/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

company. It was submission that\njust because there was a search on Shri LB Singh and his brothers and\nthey had filed a settlement application wherein they have disclosed 98%\nincome for the assessment year 2011-12 and 78.43% for the assessment\nyear 2012-13, the AO has treated

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LIMITED ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

In the result, both appeals of revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 291/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.291,293,294/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacb 7934 M & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.300 & 302/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M & Cross Objection Nos.09 & 11/Ran/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.300&302/Ran/2017) (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.09.2017 & 19.09.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011-

For Appellant: Shri M.K.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 32(2)

company. It was submission that just because there was a search on Shri L B Singh and his brothers and they had filed a settlement application wherein they have disclosed 98% income for the assessment year 2011-12 and 78.43% for the assessment year 2012-13, the AO has treated

ASHOKKUMAR PRAHLADBAI PATEL,INDIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), INDIA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1300/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69A

Navratna Group on 11.04.2017 wherein receipt of on-money by the Group was admitted and Navratna Organisers & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (NODPL) had filed a settlement application disclosing the on-money receipts. On the basis of this information, the case of the assessee was reopened. Though the assessee had denied payment ... evidence was found in the course of search regarding payment of any on-money by the assessee. Merely because NODPL had admitted in its settlement application that on-money was received by it, it does not establish that the assessee had paid on-money in respect of acquisition of property

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, 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

such deduction, in respect of the undisclosed income shown in the return filed u/s 153A and/or the additional income offered/computed in respect of the settlement application filed. It has been submitted by the learned AR that the applicants have made claim for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, 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

such deduction, in respect of the undisclosed income shown in the return filed u/s 153A and/or the additional income offered/computed in respect of the settlement application filed. It has been submitted by the learned AR that the applicants have made claim for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect

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)

PCIT (supra) also held that order of ITSC is deemed to be conclusive for all matters pertaining to concerned assessment year for which settlement application has been accepted and processed by ITSC. Such matter can be reopened as per procedure mentioned in section 245D and not under section 148. 12.We

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)

PCIT (supra) also held that order of ITSC is deemed to be conclusive for all matters pertaining to concerned assessment year for which settlement application has been accepted and processed by ITSC. Such matter can be reopened as per procedure mentioned in section 245D and not under section 148. 12.We

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-30, NEW DELHI, 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

correct in ignoring the fact that Priyank Sukhija Café Concept Pvt. Ltd. was not the applicant before the settlement application. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the provisions of the law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing the appeal

Showing 1–20 of 247 · Page 1 of 13

...