← 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

Hitesh Construction P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circal-06, New Delhi

ITA 5108/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Burnwal, Senior DR
Section 143Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Settlement Commission in the capacity of a “related” person, related to the other assessee’s of the Rockland group who had also filed settlement applications as “specified person" u/s 245C(i) proviso (i). However, the assessee's application was rejected by the Income Tax Settlement Commission vide their order dated ... over and above the income returned by the assessee: A.Y. Head of addition Amount (IN Rs.) 2008-09 (i) Disclosure in 30,00,000/- settlement application (ii) Unexplained cash 1,79,56,880/- credits (iii) Commission paid to 5,38,706/- secure unexplained cash credits The assessee filed appeal against

Hitesh Construction P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circal-06, New Delhi

ITA 5107/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Burnwal, Senior DR
Section 143Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Settlement Commission in the capacity of a “related” person, related to the other assessee’s of the Rockland group who had also filed settlement applications as “specified person" u/s 245C(i) proviso (i). However, the assessee's application was rejected by the Income Tax Settlement Commission vide their order dated ... over and above the income returned by the assessee: A.Y. Head of addition Amount (IN Rs.) 2008-09 (i) Disclosure in 30,00,000/- settlement application (ii) Unexplained cash 1,79,56,880/- credits (iii) Commission paid to 5,38,706/- secure unexplained cash credits The assessee filed appeal against

Hitesh Construction P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circal-06, New Delhi

ITA 5106/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Burnwal, Senior DR
Section 143Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Settlement Commission in the capacity of a “related” person, related to the other assessee’s of the Rockland group who had also filed settlement applications as “specified person" u/s 245C(i) proviso (i). However, the assessee's application was rejected by the Income Tax Settlement Commission vide their order dated ... over and above the income returned by the assessee: A.Y. Head of addition Amount (IN Rs.) 2008-09 (i) Disclosure in 30,00,000/- settlement application (ii) Unexplained cash 1,79,56,880/- credits (iii) Commission paid to 5,38,706/- secure unexplained cash credits The assessee filed appeal against

Hitesh Construction P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circal-06, New Delhi

ITA 5105/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Burnwal, Senior DR
Section 143Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Settlement Commission in the capacity of a “related” person, related to the other assessee’s of the Rockland group who had also filed settlement applications as “specified person" u/s 245C(i) proviso (i). However, the assessee's application was rejected by the Income Tax Settlement Commission vide their order dated ... over and above the income returned by the assessee: A.Y. Head of addition Amount (IN Rs.) 2008-09 (i) Disclosure in 30,00,000/- settlement application (ii) Unexplained cash 1,79,56,880/- credits (iii) Commission paid to 5,38,706/- secure unexplained cash credits The assessee filed appeal against

Radhika Surgical Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5089/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Radhika Surgical Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit C-30, Panchsheel Enclave, Central Circle – 6, New Delhi-110017 New Delhi Pan : Aadcr 5053 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. C. Yadav, Adv. Revenue By Shri Farhad Khan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

Section 132Section 153CSection 245CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Settlement Commission in the capacity of a “related” person, related to the other assessee’s of the Rockland group who had also filed settlement applications as “specified person" u/s 245C(i) proviso (i). However, the assessee's application was rejected by the Income Tax Settlement Commission vide their order dated

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Unitech Machines Ltd., Gurgaon

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 102/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 102/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Addl. Cit, Vs Unitech Machines Ltd., Circle-78(1), Um House, Plot No. 35P, Sector-44, New Delhi Gurgaon-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu3013P Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.03.2021

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 245D(1)Section 245D(4)

that such unaccounted salary is not embedded in unaccounted expenses claimed against the income of Rs.106.92 Lakhs offered by the assesse in its settlement application filed u/s 245D(1) of the Income Tax Act ? 1.2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Radhika Surgical Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5088/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 245CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Settlement Commission in 3 the capacity of a “related” person, related to the other assessee’s of the Rockland group who had also filed settlement applications as “specified person" u/s 245C(i) proviso (i). However, the assessee's application was rejected by the Income Tax Settlement Commission vide their order ... over and above the income returned by the assessee: A.Y Head of addition Amount (IN Rs.) 30,00,000 2008-09 (i) Disclosure in settlement application (ii) Unexplained cash credits 1,79,56,880/- (iii) Commission paid to secure 5,38,706/- unexplained cash credits The assessee filed appeal against