← All Phrases

“Vivad se Vishwas”

Settlement & AmnestyDTVSV 2020DTVSV 20204,976 judgments

The decision most relied on for Vivad se Vishwas is Damodar Valley Corpn v. Addl. CIT (66 Taxmann.com 25), cited in 14 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Vivad se Vishwas

Damodar Valley Corpn v. Addl. CIT
66 Taxmann.com 25 · 2016 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

The Tribunal's decision in the assessee's own case on a specific issue is binding on the Revenue for subsequent assessment years, especially when the assessee has availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and appeals have been dismissed on similar grounds.

Judgments citing Vivad se Vishwas

Kuthuparamba Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd, Kuthuparamba vs. ITO, Ward-2, Kannur

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn in the light of the above

ITA 877/COCH/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Aug 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2015-2016

For Appellant: ------ None ------For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 246Section 250

appellant under clause 4 of proviso to section 246(a) of the IT Act. 2. The appellant has opted for Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 and Form-3 dated 11/11/2020 has been issued to the appellant. Once Form -3 is issued the appeal is deemed to be withdrawn ... provisions of Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. 3. The present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn in the light of the above.” 3. Learned DR fails to dispute that the assessee herein has been denied the right to get the appeal adjudicated by the lower appellate authority despite

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Gehna Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1155/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm A.Y.2013-14 Acit-4(2)(1), Gehna Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Mumbai

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69C

sales reconciliation of the purchases of the above parties. Further, the assessee also submitted that it has filed relevant declaration Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form-5 was also issued by learned CIT on 29.10.2021. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to give credit to the taxes ... order is in appeal. 07. After carefully hearing the parties, we find that when the assessee has preferred the settlement of dispute under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form No.5 is also issued to the assessee dated 29.10.2021 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and on that basis only

Ritesh Saxena, Indore vs. ITO-2(5), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 94/IND/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Indore07 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Ritesh Saxena, Income-Tax Officer, T-301, Shalimar Palms, 2(5), Piplyahana, Bhopal बनाम/ Bicholi Mardana, Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Auxpx7459J Assessee By Shri S.N.Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024

Section 144Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(b)

same, Ld. AR showed that the CIT(A) dismissed assessee’s first appeal under an erroneous impression that the assessee opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme rendering assessee’s first-appeal as withdrawn and infructuous. Ld. AR pointed out that the assessee opted for Vivad Se Viswas Scheme in respect

Pushpa Dhar, Haryana vs. ITO, WD-2(1), Faridabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3633/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

incorrect facts and finding. 3. That the A.O. levied the penalty u/s 271(1) (c) ignoring the facts that the Assessee has opted "VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME". 4. That levy of penalty is against the principle of natural justice. 5. That issuance of form 5 is the responsibility ... record. In penalty proceedings the stand of the assessee before the AO was that for A.Y. 2012-13 the assessee had opted VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME and had 3 filed Form-4, issued under the said scheme. The AO, however, observing that assessee was not granted Form-5, levied

Aar Fin Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 12(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2977/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 250

Assessee vide order dated 08.11.2021 2 M/s. Aar Fin Brokers Private Limited by citing a reason that the Assessee had opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (in short “VSVS”) without appreciating that the Assessee has never opted VSVS for the subjected assessment year but in fact it has opted

Pooja Ganesh Borhade, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Rang 2 Kalyan, Mumbai

The Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4861/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271DSection 271E

notices of the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A). As per the advise of some counsels, appellant wanted to avail Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (VSVS), but later on changed her mind and did not avail scheme. As she has not availed the scheme, normal route of appeal is taken

Pooja Ganesh Borhade, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Rang-2 Kalyan, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 4860/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269TSection 271E

with the same. e) Owing to failure to comply with appeal proceedings, on advice of our legal counsel decided to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme as envisaged under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (DTVSV) and accordingly I had filed Form 1 & 2 dated ... penalty and there is no response by the appellant. It is also observed that the appellant wanted to pay full tax and avail Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme but for the best known reasons to the appellant, the Scheme was not availed and no taxes were paid as per this Scheme

ITO -24(2)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers vs. Kailash Chandra Gupta, HUF, Mumbai

ITA 4013/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

Tribunals/ courts held the decisions in favour of Department, in some cases, SEBI/SAT have penalised the operators, thousands of assessees have opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme by withdrawing the claims of penny stock, pending in appeal at that time. Subsequent to this scam, the period of holding the share ... Kolkata High Court has mentioned that several assessees who were involved in this penny stock scam all over the country availed Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, paid taxes and withdrew their appeals pending at various stages at that time. In this case of Swati Bajaj, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed

Kaushik Chandravadan Parikh, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

ITA 2064/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 68

Tribunals/courts held the decisions in favour of Department, in several cases SBI/SAT have penalised the operators, thousands of assessees have opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme of Government and withdrew appeals of penny stock, pending in appeal at that time. Subsequent to this scam, the Income Tax Act was amended ... Kolkata High Court has mentioned that several assessees who were involved in this penny stock scam all over the country availed Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, paid taxes and withdrew their appeals pending at various stages at that time. In this case of Swati Bajaj, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed

The DCIT, Cir-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn under VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME

ITA 2223/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Us Form No. 5 Issued By Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad Dated 11/11/2021 Accepting The Taxes Paid By The Assessee Under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. Thus, Ld. Counsel Pleaded The Appeal May Be Disposed Of.

Section 143(3)

Form No. 5 issued by PR. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad dated 11/11/2021 accepting the taxes paid by the assessee under VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME, 2020. Thus, Ld. Counsel pleaded the appeal may be disposed of. 3. Ld. CIT-DR Shri H. Phani Raju appearing for the Revenue confirmed ... Form No. 5 issued under VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME by Ld. Pr. CIT. 4. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn under VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME. Order pronounced in the open court on 25-07-2024 (RAMIT KOCHAR) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBERJUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad

Suresh Productions (P) Ltd, Hyderabad vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-13(Old), Range-14(Present), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2380/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

assessee seeking permission to withdraw its appeals, wherein it is mentioned that the assessee has settled the disputes under consideration by way of Vivad Se Vishwas Schme. Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) has also not raised any objection in this regard. Under these circumstances, we permit the assessee to withdraw

Suresh Productions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2106/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

assessee seeking permission to withdraw its appeals, wherein it is mentioned that the assessee has settled the disputes under consideration by way of Vivad Se Vishwas Schme. Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) has also not raised any objection in this regard. Under these circumstances, we permit the assessee to withdraw

Roselabs Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range-7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1615/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sahil ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 4Section 5

learned CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant stating that the appellant has opted for Vivad se Vishwas ('VSV') Scheme whereas the appellant had not opted for Vivad se Vishwas Scheme in respect of the said ap- peal. c. Further, the appellant submits that a rectification letter ... taxes vide Form No.5 dat- ed 5 April 2021 in terms of provisions of clause (2) of Section 5 of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. The learned CIT(A) in his order stated that the ap- peal became infructuous as per Clause 2 of Section

DCIT Central Circle-27, New Delhi vs. Vss Sales (Prop. Gaurav Jain), Ghaziabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1272/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs Vss Sales (Prop. Gaurav Jain), Central Circle-27, 11/28, Raj Nagar, New Delhi. Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. Pan: Aaypt1709K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca & Shri Satyajeet Goel, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

assessee as well as the assessing officer had filed appeal before the Tribunal. However, the assessee settled its appeal under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (DTVSV) and accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed to be withdrawn by order dated 22/01/2021 in ITA No. 615/Del/20

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Bharat Bhushan Jimndal, New Delhi

ITA 1347/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Vs Bharat Bhushan Jindal, Circle-36(1), B-159, Gujranwala Town-I, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aafpj4279B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

placed on record, submitted that the issue involved in this appeal stood resolved between the assessee and the Revenue in the proceedings under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (VSVS) and Form No.5 under VSVS stood issued on 11.06.2024. In view of this, the ld. Counsel submitted that the Revenue

Allcargo Gati Limited(Formally Known As Gati Limited), Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1686/HYD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2009-10 All Cargo Gati Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Gati Limited), Mumbai. Pan : Aabcg3709Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. K. Haritha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.06.2024 01.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

assessees.” 9. Per contra, ld. DR has submitted that the assessee has settled the issue arising in the appeal of the Revenue under Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the issue under consideration is same as 6 that of ground no.3 raised by the Revenue before the Tribunal which was subsequently ... settled under Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. 10. On merit, it was submitted that once the assessee has opted for the Tonnage Tax Scheme as applicable for section 115VG(6) of the Act, then no deduction, then no deduction is allowable. The ld. DR had drawn our attention to the provisions

Distt Cooperative Bank Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT-1, Moradabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 373/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), as first appellate authority, is based on erroneous assumption of the fact that the issue stands settled under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. 3. It comes up that assessee’s return was examined and assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income ... vide order dated 28.12.2016 against which assessee had approached in appeal before 2 CIT(Appeals), but then settled the same in Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. Subsequently, Department issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2021 and on reassessment of the alleged escaped income assessment order

Ahlers India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 524/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 524/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ahlers India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner No.39, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax,, The Trapezium, Corporate Circle 1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029. Pan: Aaeca 5688H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059291012 (1) Dated 02.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Circle 1(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 16.02.2016. The Impugned Giving Effect To The Order Of The Tribunal Was Framed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai Vide Order Dated 22.08.2017. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Nfac Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Disallowing Expenses Paid To Various Non-Resident Parties For Non-Deduction Of Tds By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40(A)(I) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,26,73,426/-. This Is The Only Limited Issue On Merits But Assessee Has Raised Various Other Issues Of Proper Opportunity Etc., Which Will Be Dealt With Later.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40

could be seen that the assessee’s appeal has been dismissed as infructuous on the ground that the assessee has opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. However, as per statement made by Ld.AR, the assessee has not opted for VSVS in respect of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). Considering

DCIT Central Circle-27, New Delhi vs. Vss Sales (Prop. Gaurav Jain), Ghaziabad

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue have no merit and are hereby dismissed

ITA 1271/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Vss Sales (Prop. Gaurav Jain), Central Circle-27, 11/28, Raj Nagar, New Delhi. Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. Pan: Aaypt1709K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca & Shri Satyajeet Goel, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

assessee as well as the assessing officer had filed appeal before the Tribunal. However, the assessee settled its appeal under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (DTVSV) and accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed to be withdrawn by order dated 22/01/2021 in ITA No. 615/Del/20

ITO, Ward- 1(2), Muzaffarnagar vs. Geeta Rani, Muzaffarnagar

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 7490/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)

Registry on 13.05.2024, seeking permission for withdrawal of the appeal on the ground that for 2 A.Y. 2015-16 assessee has opted VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME, 2020 and all due taxes have already been paid and Form-5 under the aforesaid scheme has also been issued by the PCIT Dehradun