← 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

Oberoi Realty Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4803/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar,ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 23(5)

excess. 10. Before us, it the ld.DR has relied on the assessment order. Before us, the ld.AR has submitted that the assessee preferred a Settlement Application u/s 245C of the Act before the hon’ble Settlement Commission on 22.01.2021 for AYs 2010-11 to 2020-21 and in the said

Oberoi Realty Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4802/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar,ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 23(5)

excess. 10. Before us, it the ld.DR has relied on the assessment order. Before us, the ld.AR has submitted that the assessee preferred a Settlement Application u/s 245C of the Act before the hon’ble Settlement Commission on 22.01.2021 for AYs 2010-11 to 2020-21 and in the said

The ACIT, Circle-1(2)(1), Vadodara vs. M/S. Cheminox Enterprise(Formerly Known As M/S. Supra International), Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are disposed of

ITA 1774/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

filed by the assessee does not contain the challan of payment of full and final settlement but since the Revenue has accepted their settlement application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se ITA Nos.1773 & 1774/Ahd/2019 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 ACIT vs. M/s. Cheminox Enterprise (Formerly known as M/s. Supra

The ACIT, Circle-1(2)(1), Vadodara vs. M/S. Cheminox Enterprise(Formerly Known As M/S. Supra International), Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are disposed of

ITA 1773/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

filed by the assessee does not contain the challan of payment of full and final settlement but since the Revenue has accepted their settlement application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se ITA Nos.1773 & 1774/Ahd/2019 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 ACIT vs. M/s. Cheminox Enterprise (Formerly known as M/s. Supra

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chenai vs. C.Vijaya Baskar, Pudukottai

ITA 702/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for
Section 143(3)

relating to recovery of tax demand. However, the assessee sought leave to withdraw the writ petitions and stated that he would not prosecute the settlement applications. The Hon’ble Court disposed off Writ Petition vide order dated 22.12.2022 and directed Ld. CIT(A) to dispose-off the pending appeals ... Court also held that the grounds raised in the appeals that the assessment orders were passed during the pendency of settlement application would not be available to the assessee. Pursuant to the same, hearing notices were issued to the assessee during appellate proceedings from time to time and a common

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chenai vs. C.Vijaya Baskar, Pudukottai

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

ITA 700/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.695/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.696/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.697/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.698/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.699/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.700/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.701/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit Shri C. Vijayabaskar बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1) #14/28-1, Sowrastra Street, Chennai. Illupur, Pudukottai-622 102. Vs.

For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for department)- Ld. Sr. Counsel
Section 143(3)

relating to recovery of tax demand. However, the assessee sought leave to withdraw the writ petitions and stated that he would not prosecute the settlement applications. The Hon’ble Court disposed off Writ Petition vide order dated 22.12.2022 and directed Ld. CIT(A) to dispose-off the pending appeals ... Court also held that the grounds raised in the appeals that the assessment orders were passed during the pendency of settlement application would not be available to the assessee. Pursuant to the same, hearing notices were issued to the assessee during appellate proceedings from time to time and a common

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chenai vs. C.Vijaya Baskar, Pudukottai

ITA 698/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for
Section 143(3)

relating to recovery of tax demand. However, the assessee sought leave to withdraw the writ petitions and stated that he would not prosecute the settlement applications. The Hon’ble Court disposed off Writ Petition vide order dated 22.12.2022 and directed Ld. CIT(A) to dispose-off the pending appeals ... Court also held that the grounds raised in the appeals that the assessment orders were passed during the pendency of settlement application would not be available to the assessee. Pursuant to the same, hearing notices were issued to the assessee during appellate proceedings from time to time and a common

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chenai vs. C.Vijaya Baskar, Pudukottai

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

ITA 697/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.695/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.696/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.697/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.698/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.699/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.700/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.701/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit Shri C. Vijayabaskar बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1) #14/28-1, Sowrastra Street, Chennai. Illupur, Pudukottai-622 102. Vs.

For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for department)- Ld. Sr. Counsel
Section 143(3)

relating to recovery of tax demand. However, the assessee sought leave to withdraw the writ petitions and stated that he would not prosecute the settlement applications. The Hon’ble Court disposed off Writ Petition vide order dated 22.12.2022 and directed Ld. CIT(A) to dispose-off the pending appeals ... Court also held that the grounds raised in the appeals that the assessment orders were passed during the pendency of settlement application would not be available to the assessee. Pursuant to the same, hearing notices were issued to the assessee during appellate proceedings from time to time and a common

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chenai vs. C.Vijaya Baskar, Pudukottai

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

ITA 695/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for
Section 143(3)

relating to recovery of tax demand. However, the assessee sought leave to withdraw the writ petitions and stated that he would not prosecute the settlement applications. The Hon’ble Court disposed off Writ Petition vide order dated 22.12.2022 and directed Ld. CIT(A) to dispose-off the pending appeals ... Court also held that the grounds raised in the appeals that the assessment orders were passed during the pendency of settlement application would not be available to the assessee. Pursuant to the same, hearing notices were issued to the assessee during appellate proceedings from time to time and a common

Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1232/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA and Shri R.K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena, CIT-DR (Thru” V.H.)
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Periampillai Nadar Thangavelu Soundarpandian, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2752/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2752/Chny/2024 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Periampillai Nadar Thangavelu Deputy Commissioner Of Income Soundarapandian, Tax, Vs. 1/1, P.P. Chavadi Theni Road, Central Circle-2(3) Madurai – 625 016. Chennai. [Pan: Adbps-2536-H]

For Appellant: Mr. R. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Mr. R. Venkataraman, CA
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

term funding arrangement. The case of Shri S.Seetharaman was settled by the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission by an order dated 14.12.2020 in Settlement Application No.TN/CN 51/2019-20/60/IT. 5. On the basis of excel sheet noting unearthed from the searched premises of Shri S.Seetharaman coupled with his sworn statement ... referring to the order dated 14.12.2020 passed by the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission in the case of Shri S.Seetharaman in Settlement Application No.TN/CN 51/2019-20/60/IT submitted that Shri S.Seetharaman has given a list of loan entries before the Hon’ble ITSC in which assessee’s name against

Future Gaming and Hotel Services P Ltd, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 950/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.950/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S. Future Gaming & Hotel Acit बनाम/ Services Private Limited Central Circle-2, 54, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore. Vs. Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore-641 029. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-9751-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri S. Sridhar & N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Cit-Dr A/W Ms. Anitha (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-01-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri S. Sridhar & N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - LdFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. CIT-DR a/w Ms. Anitha (Addl. CIT) – Ld.
Section 153ASection 271A

would necessitate adjustments of accounts of stockists inter-se. This methodology is prevalent in this line of trade. The same is also evident from settlement application filed by assessee’s sister concern M/s Future Trade Solutions LLP for AYs 2016- 17 to 2020-21 before Hon’ble Interim Board

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 936/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

income not disclosed in the return is estimated considering the factors mentioned in para 6.3 below and the same is offered in their respective Settlement Applications. The details of agricultural income estimated, agricultural income shown in the returns of income and the income offered in the SOF are as under ... however they have offered Rs. 21,85,136/- and Rs. 1,01,56,689/- for these AYs respectively in their settlement Applications.” Thereafter Hon’ble Settlement Commission in the absence of complete evidence accepted 50% of the income declared as agriculture income by giving following finding at Para

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 935/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

income not disclosed in the return is estimated considering the factors mentioned in para 6.3 below and the same is offered in their respective Settlement Applications. The details of agricultural income estimated, agricultural income shown in the returns of income and the income offered in the SOF are as under ... however they have offered Rs. 21,85,136/- and Rs. 1,01,56,689/- for these AYs respectively in their settlement Applications.” Thereafter Hon’ble Settlement Commission in the absence of complete evidence accepted 50% of the income declared as agriculture income by giving following finding at Para

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 934/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

income not disclosed in the return is estimated considering the factors mentioned in para 6.3 below and the same is offered in their respective Settlement Applications. The details of agricultural income estimated, agricultural income shown in the returns of income and the income offered in the SOF are as under ... however they have offered Rs. 21,85,136/- and Rs. 1,01,56,689/- for these AYs respectively in their settlement Applications.” Thereafter Hon’ble Settlement Commission in the absence of complete evidence accepted 50% of the income declared as agriculture income by giving following finding at Para

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 933/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

income not disclosed in the return is estimated considering the factors mentioned in para 6.3 below and the same is offered in their respective Settlement Applications. The details of agricultural income estimated, agricultural income shown in the returns of income and the income offered in the SOF are as under ... however they have offered Rs. 21,85,136/- and Rs. 1,01,56,689/- for these AYs respectively in their settlement Applications.” Thereafter Hon’ble Settlement Commission in the absence of complete evidence accepted 50% of the income declared as agriculture income by giving following finding at Para

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 932/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

income not disclosed in the return is estimated considering the factors mentioned in para 6.3 below and the same is offered in their respective Settlement Applications. The details of agricultural income estimated, agricultural income shown in the returns of income and the income offered in the SOF are as under ... however they have offered Rs. 21,85,136/- and Rs. 1,01,56,689/- for these AYs respectively in their settlement Applications.” Thereafter Hon’ble Settlement Commission in the absence of complete evidence accepted 50% of the income declared as agriculture income by giving following finding at Para

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 931/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

income not disclosed in the return is estimated considering the factors mentioned in para 6.3 below and the same is offered in their respective Settlement Applications. The details of agricultural income estimated, agricultural income shown in the returns of income and the income offered in the SOF are as under ... however they have offered Rs. 21,85,136/- and Rs. 1,01,56,689/- for these AYs respectively in their settlement Applications.” Thereafter Hon’ble Settlement Commission in the absence of complete evidence accepted 50% of the income declared as agriculture income by giving following finding at Para

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

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 317/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245D(1)Section 250Section 254

solely used to make addition in assessment proceedings 9 HK Enterprises, Mumbai 21. It is submitted that the appellant had disclosed information in its settlement application before Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission. The settlement application came to be rejected vide order dated 06.01.2020 u/s. 245D ... information submitted in the said settlement application is confidential in nature. This information cannot be used by any other authority for using it against the appellant. 22. Further, no incriminating material has been found relating to earning of aforesaid income. The additional income offered during the year was only

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

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 316/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245D(1)Section 250Section 254

solely used to make addition in assessment proceedings 9 HK Enterprises, Mumbai 21. It is submitted that the appellant had disclosed information in its settlement application before Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission. The settlement application came to be rejected vide order dated 06.01.2020 u/s. 245D ... information submitted in the said settlement application is confidential in nature. This information cannot be used by any other authority for using it against the appellant. 22. Further, no incriminating material has been found relating to earning of aforesaid income. The additional income offered during the year was only