“settlement application”

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre-Circle-6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Rajiv Ratan, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Dcit, Cc -6(4), Vs. Shri Rajiv Rattan Room No. 1925, 19 Th Floor, 60, 2 Nd Floor, Vasant Marg, Air India Building, Vasant Vihar, Nariman Point, New Delhi - 110057 Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aespr3957D Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 126/Mum/2022 (A.Y.2011-12) Shri Rajiv Rattan Vs. The Dcit, Cc -6(4), 60, 2 Nd Floor, Vasant Marg, Room No. 1925, 19 Th Floor, Vasant Vihar, Air India Building, New Delhi - 110057 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aespr3957D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Riddhi Mishra Respondent By : Meet Shah

behalf of Indiabulls Group and the source of application of the aforesaid funds has already been included by M/s Indiabulls Group in their settlement application filed before the Income Tax Settlement Commission. It was also explained that assessee Shri Rajiv Rattan had exited from M/s Indiabulls Group w.e.f ... commission and offered income in respect of the transaction recorded and found from the possession of Shri Ashish Mehta, the A.O stated that the settlement application filed by Indiabulls Group was still pending before the Income Tax Settlement Commission, therefore, it cannot be accepted that Indiabulls Group has accepted

DCIT CC-6(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Landmark Realty, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

justify unsecured loans taken from these twenty seven entities. The Ld D.R submitted that the Cosmos group has surrendered the loans in their Settlement application. The revenue also carried out survey operations under section 133A of the Act in one of the associate concerns of Cosmos group named M/s. Vinay

DCIT CC-6(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Landmark Realty, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

justify unsecured loans taken from these twenty seven entities. The Ld D.R submitted that the Cosmos group has surrendered the loans in their Settlement application. The revenue also carried out survey operations under section 133A of the Act in one of the associate concerns of Cosmos group named M/s. Vinay

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

under section 245C of the Act for settlement of its cases relating to the assessment years 1997- 98 to 2003-04. 3 01.03.2005 The settlement application filed by the assessee was admitted by the Settlement Commission by an order passed under section 245D(1) of the Act. M/s. Siemens ... consider the said issues and disposed of the application only with respect to the additional disclosure as made by the assessee in the settlement application. 7 22.02.2008 The assessee filed detailed submissions before the A.O. in response to notice dated 19.02.2008 issued under section 143(2) of the Act while

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre-Circle-6(4), Mumbai-400021 vs. Shri Saurabh Mittal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh,Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1435/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri. Saurabh Mittal A-19, House No.A-01, A-32, Income Tax, Centre- Westend, New Delhi-110 021 Circle-6(4) बिधम/ Room No. 1925, 19Th Vs. Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Anapm2488D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.334 & 333/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Shri. Saurabh Kumar Deputy Commissioner Of Mittal Income Tax, Centre-Circle- Room No.543, 5Th Floor, बिधम/ 6(4) Ayankar Bhavan, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Vs. M.K.Road, Air India Building, Nariman Mumbai-400 020. Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Anapm2488D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Joshi, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. A. B. Koli, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 25.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

dispute that Indiabulls Group has filed application before the Settlement Commission. However, as on the date of passing this order, the Settlement Application filed by Indiabulls Group is pending for final disposal and thus, it cannot be accepted that Indiabulls group has accepted all these cash transactions as their ... which the addition has been made, as belonging to the Indiabulls Group and the income accruing from such notings have been included in the Settlement Application. Thus, the source of receipt of Rs. 17,47,66,250/- from Indiabulls Group is from funds 16 I.T.A. No. 1435/Mum/2022 and Others Shri

DCIT Cent. Cir 1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Alpha Associates, Mumbai

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

offered for settlement, but in was offered for settlement, but in respect of the assessee no s respect of the assessee no settlement application was preferred. ettlement application was preferred. 3.1 In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee

DCIT Cent. Cir-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Alpha Associates, Mumbai

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

offered for settlement, but in was offered for settlement, but in respect of the assessee no s respect of the assessee no settlement application was preferred. ettlement application was preferred. 3.1 In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee

Hgp Community Pvt.Ltd Sucessor to Alpha Associates, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT Cent. Cir-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

offered for settlement, but in was offered for settlement, but in respect of the assessee no s respect of the assessee no settlement application was preferred. ettlement application was preferred. 3.1 In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee

Hgp Community Pvt.Ltd Sucessor to Alpha Associates, Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T.Central Cir -1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

offered for settlement, but in was offered for settlement, but in respect of the assessee no s respect of the assessee no settlement application was preferred. ettlement application was preferred. 3.1 In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee

M/S. Hgp Community Pvt. Lt D Sucessor to Alpha Associates, Mumbai vs. Dy. C.I.T. .Cent. Cir.-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

offered for settlement, but in was offered for settlement, but in respect of the assessee no s respect of the assessee no settlement application was preferred. ettlement application was preferred. 3.1 In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee