← 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
29
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
22
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
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.

Dolat Investments Ltd. v. DCIT
38 SOT 123 · 2010 · ITAT
13
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
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.

Omaxe Ltd. v. ACIT
254 CTR 370 · 2012 · High Court
11
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
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.

Gupta Perfumers (P.) Ltd. v. ITSC
348 ITR 86 · 2012 · High Court
10
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

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

In the result, the ground

ITA 1557/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

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

In the result, the ground

ITA 1556/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

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

Dy CIT-CC-2(4), Mumbai vs. Late Shri Sawarmal Hisaria Through L/H Sandeep Hisaria, Mumbai

ITA 1042/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

been admitted for the process of settlement under section 245D(1) of the Act. Consequently, the confidential information disclosed in the Annexure to the Settlement application could not have been used by the Assessing Officer against the assessee to make the impugned addition. Therefore, the addition to the income made

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 4354/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Us, The Effective Issue To Be Decided In These Appeals Is As To Whether The Ld. Administrative Cit (Ld. Cit) Was Justified In Invoking Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S.263 Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case By Treating The Order Of The Ld. Ao As Erroneous In As Much As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 245CSection 245D(1)Section 245D(3)Section 245D(4)Section 263

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. 4 14.06.2007 Pursuant ... 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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 4353/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Us, The Effective Issue To Be Decided In These Appeals Is As To Whether The Ld. Administrative Cit (Ld. Cit) Was Justified In Invoking Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S.263 Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case By Treating The Order Of The Ld. Ao As Erroneous In As Much As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 245CSection 245D(1)Section 245D(3)Section 245D(4)Section 263

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. 4 14.06.2007 Pursuant ... 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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 4352/MUM/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Us, The Effective Issue To Be Decided In These Appeals Is As To Whether The Ld. Administrative Cit (Ld. Cit) Was Justified In Invoking Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S.263 Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case By Treating The Order Of The Ld. Ao As Erroneous In As Much As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 245CSection 245D(1)Section 245D(3)Section 245D(4)Section 263

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. 4 14.06.2007 Pursuant ... 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

S.Seetharaman, Madurai vs. PCIT-1, Madurai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in terms

ITA 1546/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1546/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Guru Bashyam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 245D(4)Section 263Section 269SSection 269T

ld.Counsel for the assessee filed copy of the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission order in the assessee’s own case vide Settlement Application No.TN/CN 51/2019-20/60/IT dated 14.12.2020 u/s.245D(4) of the Act, wherein unexplained loans for AYs 2012-13 to 2018-19 amounting to Rs.44

Gmr Energy Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 526/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

245E of the Act and the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction in dropping penalty proceedings for assessment years 1970-71 to 1974-75 while deciding settlement application for assessment year 1975- 76 and further assuming that section 147 was available to the Commission. Thus, it was held that assessment would

Gmr Energy Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 513/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

245E of the Act and the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction in dropping penalty proceedings for assessment years 1970-71 to 1974-75 while deciding settlement application for assessment year 1975- 76 and further assuming that section 147 was available to the Commission. Thus, it was held that assessment would

Dy.CIT Central Cir-6(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Citra Properties Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 100/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Citra Properties Ltd., M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Income Tax, Central Circle-6(4), Connaught Place, Room No.1925, Vs. New Delhi – 110001 19Th Floor, Pan: Aadcc 0776B Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri K.C. Kanojiya, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153Section 245D(4)Section 68

Accordingly, the applicants have come forward to offer an income of 35% of cash receipt / cash generated as against the offer made in the Settlement Applications @ 10%. Thus, the profit rate of 35% was accepted by the applicants on On-Money working of Rs. 325 Cr and Bogus billing ... Commission has held that no case has been made by the department for extrapolation of on-money. Therefore, extrapolation of on-money in the settlement application for various years is reasonable on the basis of evidences seized during the search and subsequent enquiries made by the department. 8.3.4 The facts

Dr. P. Dayananda Pai, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 150/BANG/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2005-06 Dr. P Dayananda Pai, Vs. Dcit, 10/1, Lakshminarayana Complex, Circle – 2(2), Palace Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 052. Pan : Abapp 4418 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. R. Ramakrishnan, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 9.12.2019 Of Cit(A)-11, Bengaluru, Relating To Ay 2005-06. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual. He Is Also Referred To As “Pdp” In This Order. He Is In The Business Of Real Estate For Over Four Decades. He Carried On Business Of Real Estate In His Individual Capacity. From Ay 95-96 He Transferred All The Rights In Properties Under Various Agreements To A Partnership Firm “M/S.P.Dayanand Pai”, Vide Deed Of Partnership Dated 1-4-1994. In This Firm Mr.P.Dayanand Pai & His Brother Mr.P.Satish & 9 Other Individuals Were Partners. Thereafter By A Deed Of Partnership Dated 9.6.2000 The Firm “M/S.P.Dayanada Pai” Merged Its Business With Another Partnership Firm “M/S.Canara Housing Development Company” (Hereinafter Page 2 Of 39

For Appellant: Shri. R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153Section 153A

Time and again during the course of assessment proceedings, evidence was let into show that the alleged escaped income was already factored in the settlement applications filed by the appellant as well as the partnership firm and that the entire seized material belong to the partnership firm. No cognizance

Rashmi Infrastructure Developers Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3243/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15
Section 131Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 245D(1)Section 245D(4)Section 80I

dated 11.2.2015 allowed the application to be proceeded with. The ITSC vide its order u/s 245D(4) of the Act dated 9.8.2016 rejected the settlement application of the assessee company. Aggrieved by the order of the ITSC, the assessee filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court ... Asst Year 2013-14 and Rs 32,96,539/- for Asst Year 2014-15. For the Asst Year 2013-14, in the Settlement application, the assessee company estimated the on money receipts of Rs 13.25 crores and claimed deduction for estimated expenditure of Rs 11.59 crores out of the same

Rashmi Infrastructure Developers Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT -3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3128/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2013-14
Section 131Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 245D(1)Section 245D(4)Section 80I

dated 11.2.2015 allowed the application to be proceeded with. The ITSC vide its order u/s 245D(4) of the Act dated 9.8.2016 rejected the settlement application of the assessee company. Aggrieved by the order of the ITSC, the assessee filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court ... Asst Year 2013-14 and Rs 32,96,539/- for Asst Year 2014-15. For the Asst Year 2013-14, in the Settlement application, the assessee company estimated the on money receipts of Rs 13.25 crores and claimed deduction for estimated expenditure of Rs 11.59 crores out of the same

Dy CIT -CC-2(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. H.K. Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 733/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2022AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D(1)

also tried to withdraw the application before the Settlement Commission. But the Settlement Commission rejected the withdrawal application. It proceeded to reject the settlement application on its due reasoning. 6. A search & seizure action u/s. 132 was conducted on Hisaria Group on 16.11.2017. Assessee is one of the flagship concerns ... received in AO's office on 15.1.2020, in which Settlement Commission had rejected application of assessee and also request of withdrawal of the settlement application. The AO based on the provisions of section 245HAC(3) of the Act which reads as; whenever an abated proceeding gets restored back

Late Shri Sawarmal Hisaria (Through L/H. Shri Sandeep Hisaria), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Circle-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 274/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D(1)

held that admission of assessee’s application under section 245(1) was incorrect. We find that any confidential information disclosed in annexure to the settlement application before Income Tax Settlement Commission can never be the basis to make the addition. We find that in the instant case ... been admitted for the process of settlement under section 245D(1) of the Act. Consequently, the confidential information disclosed in the Annexure to the Settlement application could not have been used by the Assessing Officer against the assessee to make the impugned addition. Therefore, the addition to the income made

A.T. Trade Overseas P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC- 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 325/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blea.T. Trade Overseas Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Central Circle – 2(4) A-601 Cello Trihumph 802, 8Th Floor I.B. Patel Road, Goregaon (E) Pratishtha Bhavan Mumbai – 400063 Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Pan: Aacca7944A Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah Department By : Ms. Sailaja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Sailaja Rai
Section 132Section 245CSection 245D(1)Section 245HSection 68

section 245HA of the Act and observing as under: - “9.5 In view of these specific provision of the law, the additional income offered in Settlement application is liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee. The assessee in this regard, has relied upon certain case laws. However ... made addition of only unexplained cash credits in the hands of the assessee u/s.68 of the Act. from certain parties. The assessee while filing settlement application never stated the nature of income offered, least the unexplained cash credits, so no benefit could be given to the assessee in this regard

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 971/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

filing of the return is legally incorrect as there was no legal requirement of filing the return of income for making settlement application under section 245C of the Act and hence the settlement application filed on 31.10.2013 ought to have been treated as return and accordingly the interest levied ... deleted. 10. That the interest under section 234B of Rs. 9,70,25,626/- levied by the Ld. AO for short fall in the settlement application. 11. The appellant craves leave to alter, amend or any other grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 970/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

filing of the return is legally incorrect as there was no legal requirement of filing the return of income for making settlement application under section 245C of the Act and hence the settlement application filed on 31.10.2013 ought to have been treated as return and accordingly the interest levied ... deleted. 10. That the interest under section 234B of Rs. 9,70,25,626/- levied by the Ld. AO for short fall in the settlement application. 11. The appellant craves leave to alter, amend or any other grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 969/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

filing of the return is legally incorrect as there was no legal requirement of filing the return of income for making settlement application under section 245C of the Act and hence the settlement application filed on 31.10.2013 ought to have been treated as return and accordingly the interest levied ... deleted. 10. That the interest under section 234B of Rs. 9,70,25,626/- levied by the Ld. AO for short fall in the settlement application. 11. The appellant craves leave to alter, amend or any other grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 968/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

filing of the return is legally incorrect as there was no legal requirement of filing the return of income for making settlement application under section 245C of the Act and hence the settlement application filed on 31.10.2013 ought to have been treated as return and accordingly the interest levied ... deleted. 10. That the interest under section 234B of Rs. 9,70,25,626/- levied by the Ld. AO for short fall in the settlement application. 11. The appellant craves leave to alter, amend or any other grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing