← 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

Ashok Bharti Goswami, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(1), Pune

ITA 1263/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 153C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Chitra Narendra Parmar, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(1), Pune

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1262/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: S/Shri Kishor B Phadke &For Respondent: S/Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT &
Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 153C

submitted that the Settlement Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over a case once such case is admitted and for the period for which such settlement application is permitted to be continued with. Therefore, once such jurisdiction is so assumed by the Settlement Commission, as a sequel, the jurisdiction of the Assessing ... ITSC (2012) 348 ITR 86 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where in a settlement application certain seized papers were referred to which belonged to third persons, such seized papers can be used and utilized against such third persons

Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 7 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 8 and 9 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2436/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh&Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Acit, Circle-7(1)(1), Private Limited, 951-A, Rational House, Vs Aayakarbhawan, Mumbai- Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, 400020. Mumbai-400025. [Pan No. Aafca6819F] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 254(1)Section 92C

which cannot be allowed as an expenditure under section 37 of the Act without appreciating the fact that settlement charges were paid pursuant to settlement application and not for breach of any statutory law or provision. In erroneous relying on the DRP directions issued for AY 2016-17 stating that ... assessing officer. Though, before ld. DRP, the assessee filed detail written submission in explaining that such expenses were paid towards settlement charges as per settlement application filed by assessee, hence there was no breach of statutory provision. On confirming the order of assessing officer by ld. DRP, the assessing officer

M/S. Eagle Traders & Logistics, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(3), Bangalore

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 237/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G S, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 292B

Settlement Commission on 30-1-2015 and accepted receipt of money on the basis of hard disk from petitioners. The copy of the settlement application is required to be given to Assessing Officer. Accordingly, Assessing Officer of the searched person would have information regarding alleged money payment by petitioners

M/S. Eagle Traders & Logistics, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(3), Bangalore

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 236/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G S, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 292B

Settlement Commission on 30-1-2015 and accepted receipt of money on the basis of hard disk from petitioners. The copy of the settlement application is required to be given to Assessing Officer. Accordingly, Assessing Officer of the searched person would have information regarding alleged money payment by petitioners

M/S. Eagle Traders & Logistics, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(3), Bangalore

ITA 235/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G S, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 292B

Settlement Commission on 30-1-2015 and accepted receipt of money on the basis of hard disk from petitioners. The copy of the settlement application is required to be given to Assessing Officer. Accordingly, Assessing Officer of the searched person would have information regarding alleged money payment by petitioners

M/S. Eagle Traders & Logistics, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(3), Bangalore

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 234/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G S, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 292B

Settlement Commission on 30-1-2015 and accepted receipt of money on the basis of hard disk from petitioners. The copy of the settlement application is required to be given to Assessing Officer. Accordingly, Assessing Officer of the searched person would have information regarding alleged money payment by petitioners

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kishore Kumar Jain, Chennai

ITA 2849/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2847, 2848 & 2849 /Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2 (2), Chennai. Vs. Kishore Kumar Jain, 62, Bvk Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. [Pan: Aahpj-0401-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Mr. Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit Mr. B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. : 13.03.2025 : 26.05.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai, All Dated 10.09.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Of, By This Consolidated Order. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Common Grounds Of Appeal For All The

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 250

that the said advances were made from the accumulated profit of the company as the company has offered such impugned unaccounted income in its settlement application before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC), which makes it clear that the payment was made from the accumulated profits thereby drawing the application

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kishore Kumar Jain, Chennai

In the result the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2848/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2847, 2848 & 2849 /Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Kishore Kumar Jain, Income Tax, Vs. 62, Bvk Sampath Road, Central Circle -2 (2), Vepery, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan: Aahpj-0401-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Shivanand K Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Mr. B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.A
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 250

that the said advances were made from the accumulated profit of the company as the company has offered such impugned unaccounted income in its settlement application before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC), which makes it clear that the payment was made from the accumulated profits thereby drawing the application ... fact that the advances are made from the accumulated profit of the company as the company has offered such impugned unaccounted income in its settlement application before the ITSC, which makes it clear that the payment was made from the accumulated profits thereby drawing the application of section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kishore Kumar Jain, Chennai

ITA 2847/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2847, 2848 & 2849 /Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2 (2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Kishore Kumar Jain, Vs.62, Bvk Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. [Pan: Aahpj-0401-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Mr. Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit Mr. B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. 13.03.2025 26.05.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai, All Dated 10.09.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Of, By This Consolidated Order. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Common Grounds Of Appeal For All The

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 250

that the said advances were made from the accumulated profit of the company as the company has offered such impugned unaccounted income in its settlement application before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC), which makes it clear that the payment was made from the accumulated profits thereby drawing the application ... fact that the advances are made from the accumulated profit of the company as the company has offered such impugned unaccounted income in its settlement application before the ITSC, which makes it clear that the payment was made from the accumulated profits thereby drawing the application of section

Shri Kamaludeen Seyad Abdul Kareem, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 114/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

Aggrieved by such Assessment Orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A) - 19, Chennai. With respect to the subject issue included in the Settlement application filed by three Directors of SCML (i.e.) Shri.F.Sadiq, Shri.T.E.S.Naina Mohammed and Shri.F.Seyad Rabbani, the Income Tax Settlement Commission (“ITSC”), vide its Order dated ... that the Hon’ble Interim Board has made addition of income pertaining to investment made in the earlier assessment years not covered in the settlement application. It is submitted that the addition of Rs.4.12 crore of deposits includes the deposits made in the prior years of Rs.1.4687 crore reflected

Shri Kamaludeen Seyad Abdul Kareem, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 113/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

Aggrieved by such Assessment Orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A) - 19, Chennai. With respect to the subject issue included in the Settlement application filed by three Directors of SCML (i.e.) Shri.F.Sadiq, Shri.T.E.S.Naina Mohammed and Shri.F.Seyad Rabbani, the Income Tax Settlement Commission (“ITSC”), vide its Order dated ... that the Hon’ble Interim Board has made addition of income pertaining to investment made in the earlier assessment years not covered in the settlement application. It is submitted that the addition of Rs.4.12 crore of deposits includes the deposits made in the prior years of Rs.1.4687 crore reflected

Shri Kamaludeen Seyad Abdul Kareem, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 112/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

Aggrieved by such Assessment Orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A) - 19, Chennai. With respect to the subject issue included in the Settlement application filed by three Directors of SCML (i.e.) Shri.F.Sadiq, Shri.T.E.S.Naina Mohammed and Shri.F.Seyad Rabbani, the Income Tax Settlement Commission (“ITSC”), vide its Order dated ... that the Hon’ble Interim Board has made addition of income pertaining to investment made in the earlier assessment years not covered in the settlement application. It is submitted that the addition of Rs.4.12 crore of deposits includes the deposits made in the prior years of Rs.1.4687 crore reflected

Shri Kamaludeen Yoosufmeeran, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 111/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

Aggrieved by such Assessment Orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A) - 19, Chennai. With respect to the subject issue included in the Settlement application filed by three Directors of SCML (i.e.) Shri.F.Sadiq, Shri.T.E.S.Naina Mohammed and Shri.F.Seyad Rabbani, the Income Tax Settlement Commission (“ITSC”), vide its Order dated ... that the Hon’ble Interim Board has made addition of income pertaining to investment made in the earlier assessment years not covered in the settlement application. It is submitted that the addition of Rs.4.12 crore of deposits includes the deposits made in the prior years of Rs.1.4687 crore reflected

Shri Kamaludeen Yoosufmeeran, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 110/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

Aggrieved by such Assessment Orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A) - 19, Chennai. With respect to the subject issue included in the Settlement application filed by three Directors of SCML (i.e.) Shri.F.Sadiq, Shri.T.E.S.Naina Mohammed and Shri.F.Seyad Rabbani, the Income Tax Settlement Commission (“ITSC”), vide its Order dated ... that the Hon’ble Interim Board has made addition of income pertaining to investment made in the earlier assessment years not covered in the settlement application. It is submitted that the addition of Rs.4.12 crore of deposits includes the deposits made in the prior years of Rs.1.4687 crore reflected

Shri Kamaludeen Yoosufmeeran, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 109/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

Aggrieved by such Assessment Orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A) - 19, Chennai. With respect to the subject issue included in the Settlement application filed by three Directors of SCML (i.e.) Shri.F.Sadiq, Shri.T.E.S.Naina Mohammed and Shri.F.Seyad Rabbani, the Income Tax Settlement Commission (“ITSC”), vide its Order dated ... that the Hon’ble Interim Board has made addition of income pertaining to investment made in the earlier assessment years not covered in the settlement application. It is submitted that the addition of Rs.4.12 crore of deposits includes the deposits made in the prior years of Rs.1.4687 crore reflected

Shri Tes Fathu Rabbani, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 108/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

Aggrieved by such Assessment Orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A) - 19, Chennai. With respect to the subject issue included in the Settlement application filed by three Directors of SCML (i.e.) Shri.F.Sadiq, Shri.T.E.S.Naina Mohammed and Shri.F.Seyad Rabbani, the Income Tax Settlement Commission (“ITSC”), vide its Order dated ... that the Hon’ble Interim Board has made addition of income pertaining to investment made in the earlier assessment years not covered in the settlement application. It is submitted that the addition of Rs.4.12 crore of deposits includes the deposits made in the prior years of Rs.1.4687 crore reflected

Shri Tes Fathu Rabbani, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 107/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

Aggrieved by such Assessment Orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A) - 19, Chennai. With respect to the subject issue included in the Settlement application filed by three Directors of SCML (i.e.) Shri.F.Sadiq, Shri.T.E.S.Naina Mohammed and Shri.F.Seyad Rabbani, the Income Tax Settlement Commission (“ITSC”), vide its Order dated ... that the Hon’ble Interim Board has made addition of income pertaining to investment made in the earlier assessment years not covered in the settlement application. It is submitted that the addition of Rs.4.12 crore of deposits includes the deposits made in the prior years of Rs.1.4687 crore reflected

Shri Tes Fathu Rabbani, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 106/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

Aggrieved by such Assessment Orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A) - 19, Chennai. With respect to the subject issue included in the Settlement application filed by three Directors of SCML (i.e.) Shri.F.Sadiq, Shri.T.E.S.Naina Mohammed and Shri.F.Seyad Rabbani, the Income Tax Settlement Commission (“ITSC”), vide its Order dated ... that the Hon’ble Interim Board has made addition of income pertaining to investment made in the earlier assessment years not covered in the settlement application. It is submitted that the addition of Rs.4.12 crore of deposits includes the deposits made in the prior years of Rs.1.4687 crore reflected

Shri Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul Kareem, Vannarpettai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 3272/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

Aggrieved by such Assessment Orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A) - 19, Chennai. With respect to the subject issue included in the Settlement application filed by three Directors of SCML (i.e.) Shri.F.Sadiq, Shri.T.E.S.Naina Mohammed and Shri.F.Seyad Rabbani, the Income Tax Settlement Commission (“ITSC”), vide its Order dated ... that the Hon’ble Interim Board has made addition of income pertaining to investment made in the earlier assessment years not covered in the settlement application. It is submitted that the addition of Rs.4.12 crore of deposits includes the deposits made in the prior years of Rs.1.4687 crore reflected