← 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

Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 712/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

Mohan Thakurdas Guranani 143 (2) before the old assessing officer lapsed in any case on filing of settlement application and also on transfer of jurisdiction when there is new officer, necessary notice u/s 143 (2) should have been issued. He specifically referred to the decision of the Hotel blue moon

Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 711/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

Mohan Thakurdas Guranani 143 (2) before the old assessing officer lapsed in any case on filing of settlement application and also on transfer of jurisdiction when there is new officer, necessary notice u/s 143 (2) should have been issued. He specifically referred to the decision of the Hotel blue moon

Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 710/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

Mohan Thakurdas Guranani 143 (2) before the old assessing officer lapsed in any case on filing of settlement application and also on transfer of jurisdiction when there is new officer, necessary notice u/s 143 (2) should have been issued. He specifically referred to the decision of the Hotel blue moon

Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 709/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

Mohan Thakurdas Guranani 143 (2) before the old assessing officer lapsed in any case on filing of settlement application and also on transfer of jurisdiction when there is new officer, necessary notice u/s 143 (2) should have been issued. He specifically referred to the decision of the Hotel blue moon

Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cirle - 5(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 2089/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

Mohan Thakurdas Guranani 143 (2) before the old assessing officer lapsed in any case on filing of settlement application and also on transfer of jurisdiction when there is new officer, necessary notice u/s 143 (2) should have been issued. He specifically referred to the decision of the Hotel blue moon

Hema Kanwar Narendra Singh Rathod, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 159/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 245CSection 245DSection 250Section 68

income and accordingly assessable in his hands. It was also submitted by ld. A/R that after search, the husband of the assessee filed settlement application under section 245C of the IT Act before the Income Tax Settlement Commission on 24.01.2020. A copy of the said settlement application filed also included ... placed on record. We Smt. Hema Kanwar Narendra Singh Rathod, Jaipur. have perused the documents placed on record before us in the shape of settlement application under section 245C of the IT Act filed before Income Tax Settlement Commission and further we also noticed that the Income Tax Settlement Commission

Hema Kanwar Narendra Singh Rathod, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 158/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 245CSection 245DSection 250Section 68

income and accordingly assessable in his hands. It was also submitted by ld. A/R that after search, the husband of the assessee filed settlement application under section 245C of the IT Act before the Income Tax Settlement Commission on 24.01.2020. A copy of the said settlement application filed also included ... placed on record. We Smt. Hema Kanwar Narendra Singh Rathod, Jaipur. have perused the documents placed on record before us in the shape of settlement application under section 245C of the IT Act filed before Income Tax Settlement Commission and further we also noticed that the Income Tax Settlement Commission

DCIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Dhani Services Ltd (Previously Known As Indiabulls Ventures Ltd. Prior to That Known As India Bulls Ventures Ltd, Delhi

ITA 1422/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69C

1422/Mum/2022 Dhani Services Ltd also submitted that the narration of said cash entries and the treatment given to these entries in the Settlement application. However, the AO was of the view that the assessee is not before the Settlement Commission and the expenses were incurred by or on behalf ... receipt of revenue nature goes untaxed, all unidentifiable revenue receipts were apportioned, on a best effort basis, amongst the 16 applicants who filed the settlement applications. The Assessee submits that the issue, of identification of 16 entities to whom the source transactions relates as also apportionment of unidentifiable revenue receipts

DCIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Dhani Services Ltd (Previously Known As Indiabulls Ventures Ltd. Prior to That Known As India Bulls Ventures Ltd, Delhi

ITA 1421/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69C

1422/Mum/2022 Dhani Services Ltd also submitted that the narration of said cash entries and the treatment given to these entries in the Settlement application. However, the AO was of the view that the assessee is not before the Settlement Commission and the expenses were incurred by or on behalf ... receipt of revenue nature goes untaxed, all unidentifiable revenue receipts were apportioned, on a best effort basis, amongst the 16 applicants who filed the settlement applications. The Assessee submits that the issue, of identification of 16 entities to whom the source transactions relates as also apportionment of unidentifiable revenue receipts

DCIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Dhani Services Ltd (Previously Known As Indiabulls Ventures Ltd. Prior to That Known As India Bulls Ventures Ltd, Delhi

ITA 1420/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69C

1422/Mum/2022 Dhani Services Ltd also submitted that the narration of said cash entries and the treatment given to these entries in the Settlement application. However, the AO was of the view that the assessee is not before the Settlement Commission and the expenses were incurred by or on behalf ... receipt of revenue nature goes untaxed, all unidentifiable revenue receipts were apportioned, on a best effort basis, amongst the 16 applicants who filed the settlement applications. The Assessee submits that the issue, of identification of 16 entities to whom the source transactions relates as also apportionment of unidentifiable revenue receipts

DCIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Dhani Services Ltd (Previously Known As Indiabulls Ventures Ltd. Prior to That Known As India Bulls Ventures Ltd, Delhi

ITA 1419/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69C

1422/Mum/2022 Dhani Services Ltd also submitted that the narration of said cash entries and the treatment given to these entries in the Settlement application. However, the AO was of the view that the assessee is not before the Settlement Commission and the expenses were incurred by or on behalf ... receipt of revenue nature goes untaxed, all unidentifiable revenue receipts were apportioned, on a best effort basis, amongst the 16 applicants who filed the settlement applications. The Assessee submits that the issue, of identification of 16 entities to whom the source transactions relates as also apportionment of unidentifiable revenue receipts

Shrikanta Bajaj, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT(Central) - 3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 553/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Vikram Bajaj, Vs Pr. Cit (Central)-3, Rnp House, New Delhi. 1 Shivaji Enclave, Main Road, Near Raja Garden, New Delhi – 110 027. Pan: Acxpb6203D Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shrikanta Bajaj, Vs. Pr. Cit (Central)-3, Rnp House, New Delhi. 1 Shivaji Enclave, Main Road, Near Raja Garden, New Delhi – 110 027. Pan: Ahlpr0130J (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Advocate & Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.07.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: These Appeals In Ita No.552/Del/2021 & 553/Del/2021 For Ay 2016-17 Arise Out Of The Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Delhi-

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 263

ITAs No.552 & 553/Del/2021 5. The assessee also filed a letter to the ld. AO stating that M/s RNB Mercantile Pvt. Ltd had filed a settlement application before the Settlement Commission, New Delhi for AY 2017-18 on 18.12.2019 wherein the on money transactions in the subject mentioned property ... outcome of the settlement petition filed by M/s RNB Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Finally, the Interim Board for Settlement-VII, Chennai, disposed of the settlement application and passed an order u/s 245D(4) of the Act on 27.02.2023 in the hands of M/s RNB Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Before passing this order

Jamnadas Ramjibhai Vikani, Manavadar vs. DCIT, Int.Tax.Rajkot, Rajkot

ITA 73/RJT/2023[2000-01]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot28 Jun 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Block Period: 1.4.89 To 8.6.1999) Shri Jamnadas R Vikani The Deputy बनाम/ 22, Kailashnagar, Mitadi Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Manavadar Tax Cirlce-1(1), Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavpv6232E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/06/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/06/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Sets Of Orders; Two Dated 16.07.2003 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot In Ita Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & And Other Two Orders Dated 27.01.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad In Ita Nos. 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 132Section 158BSection 245F(2)Section 245HSection 269SSection 271D

Rs.26,97,460/- & Rs.23,45,415/- respectively on 25.07.2002. 5. During the pendency of the assessment proceeding consequent to search, the appellant filed a settlement application before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Mumbai on 23.05.2001. It is ITA Nos. 215/Rjt/2022 & 3 Ors. (Jamnadas R. Vikani ... denied such allegation and further requested the said JCIT to keep such penalty proceeding in abeyance in order to avoid multiple proceedings as the settlement application filed before the Settlement Commission was pending. Such plea, needless to mention, was not found to be acceptable and penalties were imposed. 6. Prior

Jamnadas Ramjibhai Vikani, Manavadar vs. DCIT, Int.Tax, Rajkot

ITA 72/RJT/2023[BP 01.04.1989 to 08.06.1999]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot28 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Block Period: 1.4.89 To 8.6.1999) Shri Jamnadas R Vikani The Deputy बनाम/ 22, Kailashnagar, Mitadi Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Manavadar Tax Cirlce-1(1), Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavpv6232E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/06/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/06/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Sets Of Orders; Two Dated 16.07.2003 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot In Ita Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & And Other Two Orders Dated 27.01.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad In Ita Nos. 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 132Section 158BSection 245F(2)Section 245HSection 269SSection 271D

Rs.26,97,460/- & Rs.23,45,415/- respectively on 25.07.2002. 5. During the pendency of the assessment proceeding consequent to search, the appellant filed a settlement application before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Mumbai on 23.05.2001. It is ITA Nos. 215/Rjt/2022 & 3 Ors. (Jamnadas R. Vikani ... denied such allegation and further requested the said JCIT to keep such penalty proceeding in abeyance in order to avoid multiple proceedings as the settlement application filed before the Settlement Commission was pending. Such plea, needless to mention, was not found to be acceptable and penalties were imposed. 6. Prior

Jamndas Ramjibhai Vikani, Manavadar vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

ITA 216/RJT/2022[2000-01]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot28 Jun 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Block Period: 1.4.89 To 8.6.1999) Shri Jamnadas R Vikani The Deputy बनाम/ 22, Kailashnagar, Mitadi Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Manavadar Tax Cirlce-1(1), Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavpv6232E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/06/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/06/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Sets Of Orders; Two Dated 16.07.2003 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot In Ita Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & And Other Two Orders Dated 27.01.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad In Ita Nos. 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 132Section 158BSection 245F(2)Section 245HSection 269SSection 271D

Rs.26,97,460/- & Rs.23,45,415/- respectively on 25.07.2002. 5. During the pendency of the assessment proceeding consequent to search, the appellant filed a settlement application before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Mumbai on 23.05.2001. It is ITA Nos. 215/Rjt/2022 & 3 Ors. (Jamnadas R. Vikani ... denied such allegation and further requested the said JCIT to keep such penalty proceeding in abeyance in order to avoid multiple proceedings as the settlement application filed before the Settlement Commission was pending. Such plea, needless to mention, was not found to be acceptable and penalties were imposed. 6. Prior

Jamndas Ramjibhai Vikani, Manavadar vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

ITA 215/RJT/2022[2000-01]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot28 Jun 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Block Period: 1.4.89 To 8.6.1999) Shri Jamnadas R Vikani The Deputy बनाम/ 22, Kailashnagar, Mitadi Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Manavadar Tax Cirlce-1(1), Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavpv6232E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/06/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/06/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Sets Of Orders; Two Dated 16.07.2003 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot In Ita Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & And Other Two Orders Dated 27.01.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad In Ita Nos. 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 132Section 158BSection 245F(2)Section 245HSection 269SSection 271D

Rs.26,97,460/- & Rs.23,45,415/- respectively on 25.07.2002. 5. During the pendency of the assessment proceeding consequent to search, the appellant filed a settlement application before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Mumbai on 23.05.2001. It is ITA Nos. 215/Rjt/2022 & 3 Ors. (Jamnadas R. Vikani ... denied such allegation and further requested the said JCIT to keep such penalty proceeding in abeyance in order to avoid multiple proceedings as the settlement application filed before the Settlement Commission was pending. Such plea, needless to mention, was not found to be acceptable and penalties were imposed. 6. Prior

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Lipi Finstock Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3608/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 245CSection 68

related” person to the “specified person”. The A.O. also made addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of additional income reflected in its settlement application before the Income Tax Settlement Commission. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 20/06/2014, the assessee preferred an Appeal before

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-CC-4, Surat vs. Naresh Bhikhabhai Savaliya, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 283/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.283/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-4, Vs. Naresh Bhikhabhai Savaliya, Surat. 2, Sargam Society, Katargam Siganpore Road, Katargam, Surat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akrps3049Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Nitin Gheewala, Ar Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2023

Section 143(3)

appearing at Rs.7,53,45,167/- whereas the partnership firm has considered only an amount of sales of Rs.4,93,57,292/- in its settlement application for disclosing the profit and the net amount of Rs.2,96,25,000/- appearing on the payment side was shown as "Partners Divided" which

ACIT (Central)-II, Bhopal vs. M/S. Fortune Soumya Housing, Bhopal

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 667/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)

immovable housing projects. Assessments for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2013-14 in case of the assessee were pending. The appellant moved settlement applications seeking to resolve the disputes with Revenue arising in the said pending assessments for the said assessment years. In the settlement applications, the appellant ... does not amount to untrue disclosure for other assessment years under settlement proceedings. Commission accepting disclosures made by assessees and passing orders on their settlement applications. Order of Settlement Commission not erroneous. 4.1.5 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its several decisions have held that the principle of res judicata

Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. ACIT, Centarl Circle-2, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 6/RJT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271BSection 271F

data, the appellant decided to opt for settlement of case by filing application with Hon'ble Income-tax Settlement Commission. The appellant has filed settlement application before the Hon'ble Income-tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench-II, Mumbai on 08.08.2014 and simultaneously filed return of income with the AO. Copy