What is the leading case on settlement application?

CIT v. CPR Capital Services Ltd. (331 ITR 483) is the decision most relied on for settlement application, cited in 29 judgments on BharatTax. If there is a change in the assessing officer, a new notice under section 143(2) should be issued, especially after a settlement application is filed or jurisdiction is transferred.

Which cases are most cited on settlement application?

CIT v. CPR Capital Services Ltd. (331 ITR 483) — 29 citing judgments; Star Television News Limited v. UOI & Others (317 ITR 66) — 22 citing judgments; Nanji Enterprise Ltd. v. DCIT (84 Taxmann.com 155) — 15 citing judgments; Dolat Investments Ltd. v. DCIT (38 SOT 123) — 13 citing judgments; Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India (219 ITR 618) — 12 citing judgments.

How many judgments discuss settlement application?

BharatTax indexes 247 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss settlement application (Section 245C).

← All Phrases

“settlement application”

Settlement & AmnestySection 245CSection 245C247 judgments

The decision most relied on for settlement application is CIT v. CPR Capital Services Ltd. (331 ITR 483), cited in 29 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on settlement application

CIT v. CPR Capital Services Ltd.

331 ITR 483 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

If there is a change in the assessing officer, a new notice under section 143(2) should be issued, especially after a settlement application is filed or jurisdiction is transferred.

Star Television News Limited v. UOI & Others

317 ITR 66 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

The Settlement Commission must hear applications where delay in disposal before March 31, 2008, is not attributable to the applicant. Section 245HA(1)(iv) is arbitrary and unreasonable if an applicant faces hardship due to the Settlement Commission's inability to dispose of applications by a specified date.

Nanji Enterprise Ltd. v. DCIT

84 Taxmann.com 155 · 2017 · High Court

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.

Dolat Investments Ltd. v. DCIT

38 SOT 123 · 2010 · ITAT

citing judgments

Confidential information disclosed to the Settlement Commission cannot be used by the Assessing Officer to make additions if the settlement application is not admitted under section 245D(1).

Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India

219 ITR 618 · 1996 · Supreme Court

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.

Omaxe Ltd. v. ACIT

254 CTR 370 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

Once an application is admitted by the Settlement Commission, it has exclusive jurisdiction over the assessee's case until a final order is passed, precluding the Assessing Officer and Commissioner (Appeals) from invoking reassessment provisions.

Komalkant Faikirchand Sharma v. DCIT

108 Taxmann.com 50 · High Court

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.

Gupta Perfumers (P.) Ltd. v. ITSC

348 ITR 86 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

Seized papers referred to in a settlement application, even if they belong to third persons, can be used and utilized against those third persons.

Judgments citing settlement application

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

ITA 2577/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: This Tribunal.

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. 13. 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. 14. 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

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

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

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

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

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

ITA 2570/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: This Tribunal. 2. Since, The Facts Are The Identical Across All The Appeals / For All The Assessment Years, Except For The Nature Of The Additions / Disallowances Varying In Few Of The Assessment Year(S) Before This Tribunal In The Present Batch Of 6 Appeals, The Appeal Arising From The A.Y. 2012-13 Is Being Taken Up As The Lead Case With The Consent Of The Both The Ld. Ar As Well As The Departmental Representatives. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Present Case Is That The Assessee, Shri Thanushkodi Narayanan, Is The Managing Director Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt Ltd. The Assessee Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 27.09.2012 In Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.24,87,430/-. 4. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Carried Out In Terms Of Section 132 Of The Act On 04.10.2017 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee & Also In The Premises Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. In Which The Assessee Is The Managing Director. 5. Thereafter, A Notice U/S.153A Of The Act For The A.Y.2012-13 Was Issued On 25.09.2018 To The Assessee By The Assessing Officer (In Short “Ao”) & In Response To The Same, The Assessee Had Filed E-Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 17.08.2019 In Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,53,440/-. :-3-:

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

Jothi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

ITA 2569/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: This Tribunal.

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. 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 by the assessee for the reason that M/s. Annai Builders Real

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

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

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, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacb 7934 M Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad & 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) निर्धारिती 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 / Order Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Id.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.09.2017 & 19.09.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011- 12 & 2012-13, Respectively. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections Arising Out Of Appeals Of Revenue For A.Y.2009-2010 & 2011-2012. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeals Of The Revenue Filed For A.Y.2009- 2010 & 2011-2012. Ld. Ar, At The Outset, Filed A Chart Specifying The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue, Which Reads As Follows :- Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad Pan: Aaacb7934M Additions Disputed In Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

For Appellant: Shri M.K.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 300Section 32(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राँची न्यायपीठ, राँची IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM

ACIT Cir-1, Dhanbad vs. M/S Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd, Dhanbad

ITA 300/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. 2 12 & 2012-13, respectively. The assessee has also filed cross objections arising out of

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 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 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

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)

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

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