← 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

Ravinder Hooda, Rohtak vs. Jt DIT (I and Ci), Chandigarh

ITA 2555/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Ravinder Hooda, Vs Jt Dit (I & Ci), H.No.308/6, Sir Chhotu Ram Chandigarh. Colony, Gali No.8, Sukhpura Chowk, Rohtak, Haryana-124001. Pan-Aclph6161Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Subodh Jain, Adv. & Shri Samyak Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23.02.2024

Section 271F

penalty of Rs. 1,01,900/-, imposed by the assessing officer under section 271FA of the Act, since the appellant opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and paid the due amount of Rs. 30,570/- vide challan no. 04599 dated 29/10/2021 and BSR Code 0302275. 2.1 That

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S.Minal Constractors and Builders Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 646/CHNY/2023[2021-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-23

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

Supreme Court to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger bench by opting under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel furnished the copy of order dated 10.08.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Interlocutory Application ... submission of the ld. Counsel that since the case of National Travel Services v. CIT (supra) has been settled under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, no binding precedent arises from such judgement and accordingly submitted that the case of CIT v. Ankitech (P.) Ltd (supra) as affirmed

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Meadow Infrastructure Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 645/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

Supreme Court to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger bench by opting under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel furnished the copy of order dated 10.08.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Interlocutory Application ... submission of the ld. Counsel that since the case of National Travel Services v. CIT (supra) has been settled under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, no binding precedent arises from such judgement and accordingly submitted that the case of CIT v. Ankitech (P.) Ltd (supra) as affirmed

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S.Mac Quality Builders Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 644/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

Supreme Court to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger bench by opting under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel furnished the copy of order dated 10.08.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Interlocutory Application ... submission of the ld. Counsel that since the case of National Travel Services v. CIT (supra) has been settled under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, no binding precedent arises from such judgement and accordingly submitted that the case of CIT v. Ankitech (P.) Ltd (supra) as affirmed

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Mukilanstructurals Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 643/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

Supreme Court to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger bench by opting under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel furnished the copy of order dated 10.08.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Interlocutory Application ... submission of the ld. Counsel that since the case of National Travel Services v. CIT (supra) has been settled under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, no binding precedent arises from such judgement and accordingly submitted that the case of CIT v. Ankitech (P.) Ltd (supra) as affirmed

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 642/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

Supreme Court to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger bench by opting under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel furnished the copy of order dated 10.08.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Interlocutory Application ... submission of the ld. Counsel that since the case of National Travel Services v. CIT (supra) has been settled under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, no binding precedent arises from such judgement and accordingly submitted that the case of CIT v. Ankitech (P.) Ltd (supra) as affirmed

M/S Ratnadeep Multitrade Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3561/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant S. PathakFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 4

assessment order dated 30/03/2022 passed u/s 144B r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) by stating that "appellant has opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme". M/s. Ratnadeep Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.3561/Mum./2023 (b) The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing an opportunity of being ... heard which is in gross violation of principle of natural justice. The Appellant submits that it has opted for Vivad se Vishwas Scheme against the impugned assessment order. Hence, the order passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) deserves to be set aside and appeal may be restored. The Appellant

DCIT 15 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Wanbury Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3626/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Wanbury Limited, B Wing, 10Th Floor, Income Tax, Circle – 15(3)(1), Bsel Tech Park, Room No.451, 4Th Floor, Vs. Sector 30, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp Vashi Railway Station, M.K. Road, Vashi, Mumbai - 400020 Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan: Aabcp5939P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Fenil Bhatt, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2024 Order Per : Om Prakash Kant, Am This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 07.02.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [In Short The Ld. Cit(A)] For Assessment Year 2015-16, Raising Following Grounds:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.1,29,63,154/-, Without Considering The Circular No. 22/2015 Dated 17.12.2015 Of The Board Regarding Employer'S Contribution To Funds For The Welfare Of Employees In Terms Of Section 43B (B)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, DR
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

holding that the assessee applied for settlement of tax dispute holding that the assessee applied for settlement of tax dispute under the ‘Vivad Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme’ (VSVS), 2020. However, (VSVS), 2020. However, on miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue that the on miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue that

Srei Multiple Asset Investment Trust, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-29, Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 421/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

other one against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The assessee availed the benefit of Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (VSV) qua penalty imposed u/s 271B of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) though mentioned the appeal number of the quantum appeal but construed

Dreamz Vanijya (P)Ltd, Nagpur vs. ITO, Kolkata

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

ITA 522/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)

subsequently sent to the appellant calling for a detailed rebuttal, if any, in the following manner: If you are not opting for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020, then in support of your Grounds of Appeal, you are requested to furnish or cause to be furnished Ground-wise written submissions, along

Castrol India Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

ITA 2433/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blecastrol India Limited V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Technopolis Knowledge Park Delhi Mahakali Caves Road Chakala, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400093 Pan: Aaacc4481E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Chandni Shah, Shri Hardik Nirmal & Ms. Riddhi Maru Department Represented By : Ms. A. Alankrutha

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

benchmarking. The order of Assessment Year 2002-03 was not reached finality for the reason that assessee has settled the issue under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, even though assessee has preferred appeal before Hon’ble High Court. Page 12 of 29 Castrol India Limited 22. Considered the rival submissions

Bharat Light and Power Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 2, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 297/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Bharat Light & Power Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit-2, 77, Poorvi Marg, Basement, New Delhi. Vasant Vihar, New Delhi – 110 057. Pan: Aadcb9467C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2024 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

withdrawal of the appeal bearing No.297/Del/2019 was received from the assessee submitting that the assessee has opted to settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form No.1 and 2 stand issued on 31st January, 2021 and the Form No.3 has been issued by the designated authority

Gurmukh Singh Bali, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1244/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 80I

filed an application for withdrawal of the appeal on the ground that for the assessment year in question the assessee had opted VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME, 2020 and has also filed Form no. 5 issued by the Department for full and final settlement of tax arrear. Learned counsel submitted that

Jt Commissioner of Income Tax (in Situ) Circle-4(1), Kolkata vs. Mcleod Co. Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 513/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

dated 23.09.2023 for AY 2013-14. 2. At the time of hearing, it was pointed out that the assessee has already gone into Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 ('VSVS 2024' Scheme) by filing form no.1, with the 2 I.T.A. No. 513/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcleod Co. Ltd. competent authority

M/S.Koninklijke Philips N.V, Kolkata vs. ACIT(I), Cir-1(2), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1264/KOL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

dated 23.08.2023 for AY 2021-22. 2. At the time of hearing, it was pointed out that the assessee has already gone into Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 ('VSVS 2024' Scheme) by filing form no.1, with the 2 I.T.A. No. 1264/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/s Koninklijke Philips

M/S. Lemnisk Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, (International Taxation)Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1081/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 1080 & 1081/Bang/2023 Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Lemnisk Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy 3Rd Floor, 3Rd Main Road, Commissioner Of No. 45, Income Tax Chennamanakere (International Achukattu, Taxation), Banashankari 3Rd Stage, Circle 2(2), Vs. Bangalore – 560 085. Bangalore. Pan: Aaccv8881B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj SheshadriFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 5(2)Section 6

Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeals before this Tribunal. 3. The Ld.AR submitted that, the assessee preferred Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 scheme benefits for issues alleged in IT(TP)A Nos. 2635 & 2636/Bang/2019 for A.Ys. 2014-15 and 2015-16, whereas the present ... Ld.CIT(A) to consider the issues on merits as the issues alleged herein have not been settled by the assessee under Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. 3.1 The Ld.DR supported the argument of the Ld.AR Page 5 of 6 IT(IT)A Nos. 1080 & 1081/Bang/2023 We have perused the submissions

M/S. Lemnisk Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax9International Taxation)Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1080/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 1080 & 1081/Bang/2023 Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Lemnisk Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy 3Rd Floor, 3Rd Main Road, Commissioner Of No. 45, Income Tax Chennamanakere (International Achukattu, Taxation), Banashankari 3Rd Stage, Circle 2(2), Vs. Bangalore – 560 085. Bangalore. Pan: Aaccv8881B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj SheshadriFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 5(2)Section 6

Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeals before this Tribunal. 3. The Ld.AR submitted that, the assessee preferred Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 scheme benefits for issues alleged in IT(TP)A Nos. 2635 & 2636/Bang/2019 for A.Ys. 2014-15 and 2015-16, whereas the present ... Ld.CIT(A) to consider the issues on merits as the issues alleged herein have not been settled by the assessee under Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. 3.1 The Ld.DR supported the argument of the Ld.AR Page 5 of 6 IT(IT)A Nos. 1080 & 1081/Bang/2023 We have perused the submissions

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Wimco Greens, New Delhi

ITA 2110/DEL/2010[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2024AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

aggrieved with the same, both Assessee and Revenue have approached this Tribunal with respective appeals. 2.1 The appeal of assessee was settled under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme being 2.2 Revenue’s appeal raises following grounds: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred

ACIT Circle-8(2), New Delhi vs. Efficient Technology Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

Appeal is hereby dismissed with liberty to get it restored in case dispute is not settled as per

ITA 656/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraacit, Circle 8 (2), Vs. Efficient Technology Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 10159, Padam Singh Road, Apartment No.303, Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110 055. (Pan : Aabce6289M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Praveen Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri T. James Singson, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Praveen Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT DR

ground that the assessee has opted to settle the dispute relating to the tax arrears for the assessment year under consideration under the “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020” and has filed Form 5 issued by the Tax Department. 2 3. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, present appeal is hereby

Mukesh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-61(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3364/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi23 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Muneesh Rajani, DR

ground that the assessee has opted to settle the dispute relating to the tax arrears for the assessment year under consideration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 and the order for full and final settlement of tax arrear in Form No. 5 has already been issued by the Department