← 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

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

Pioneer Investcorp Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 934/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 263

challenged the addition of commission income by filing appeals before Ld CIT(A). However, both these assessees chose settle the said dispute under Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 and accordingly settled the same. Taking support of the provisions of VSV Act, these assessees contended before Ld CIT(A) that ... payments 5 M/s. Pioneer Investcorp Limited made to Shri Deepak Kochhar have attained finality after acceptance of applications filed by these assessees under Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. 9. The Ld PCIT, however, expressed the view that the settlement of dispute under VSV Act is no bar for initiating revision

Pioneer Investcorp Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 933/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 263

challenged the addition of commission income by filing appeals before Ld CIT(A). However, both these assessees chose settle the said dispute under Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 and accordingly settled the same. Taking support of the provisions of VSV Act, these assessees contended before Ld CIT(A) that ... payments 5 M/s. Pioneer Investcorp Limited made to Shri Deepak Kochhar have attained finality after acceptance of applications filed by these assessees under Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. 9. The Ld PCIT, however, expressed the view that the settlement of dispute under VSV Act is no bar for initiating revision

Bayer Cropscience Limited, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT, Circle-1 Thane, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed, as above

ITA 3159/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Kacha

dismissing the appeals of the assessee M/s. Bayer CropScience Limited as infructuous in terms of clause 4(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 vide similarly worded but separate orders dated 13.06.2022. 2. It was pointed out, by referring to Ground of Appeal ... Tribunal and not pending before the learned CIT(A).” that it is not the assessee which has opted to settle the dispute under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 but M/s. Monsanto India Limited, which is the entity that has amalgamated/merged with the assessee as per order of NCLT w.e.f

Bayer Cropscience Limited, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT, Circle-1 Thane, Thane

Appeals are allowed, as above

ITA 3158/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Kacha

dismissing the appeals of the assessee M/s. Bayer CropScience Limited as infructuous in terms of clause 4(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 vide similarly worded but separate orders dated 13.06.2022. 2. It was pointed out, by referring to Ground of Appeal ... Tribunal and not pending before the learned CIT(A).” that it is not the assessee which has opted to settle the dispute under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 but M/s. Monsanto India Limited, which is the entity that has amalgamated/merged with the assessee as per order of NCLT w.e.f

Bayer Cropscience Limited, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT, Circle-1 Thane, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed, as above

ITA 3157/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Kacha

dismissing the appeals of the assessee M/s. Bayer CropScience Limited as infructuous in terms of clause 4(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 vide similarly worded but separate orders dated 13.06.2022. 2. It was pointed out, by referring to Ground of Appeal ... Tribunal and not pending before the learned CIT(A).” that it is not the assessee which has opted to settle the dispute under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 but M/s. Monsanto India Limited, which is the entity that has amalgamated/merged with the assessee as per order of NCLT w.e.f

Bayer Cropscience Limited, Thane vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Thane

Appeals are allowed, as above

ITA 3156/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Kacha

dismissing the appeals of the assessee M/s. Bayer CropScience Limited as infructuous in terms of clause 4(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 vide similarly worded but separate orders dated 13.06.2022. 2. It was pointed out, by referring to Ground of Appeal ... Tribunal and not pending before the learned CIT(A).” that it is not the assessee which has opted to settle the dispute under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 but M/s. Monsanto India Limited, which is the entity that has amalgamated/merged with the assessee as per order of NCLT w.e.f

Bayer Cropscience Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Thane

Appeals are allowed, as above

ITA 3155/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Kacha

dismissing the appeals of the assessee M/s. Bayer CropScience Limited as infructuous in terms of clause 4(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 vide similarly worded but separate orders dated 13.06.2022. 2. It was pointed out, by referring to Ground of Appeal ... Tribunal and not pending before the learned CIT(A).” that it is not the assessee which has opted to settle the dispute under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 but M/s. Monsanto India Limited, which is the entity that has amalgamated/merged with the assessee as per order of NCLT w.e.f

Bayer Cropscience Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed, as above

ITA 3154/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Kacha

dismissing the appeals of the assessee M/s. Bayer CropScience Limited as infructuous in terms of clause 4(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 vide similarly worded but separate orders dated 13.06.2022. 2. It was pointed out, by referring to Ground of Appeal ... Tribunal and not pending before the learned CIT(A).” that it is not the assessee which has opted to settle the dispute under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 but M/s. Monsanto India Limited, which is the entity that has amalgamated/merged with the assessee as per order of NCLT w.e.f

Bayer Cropscience Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 10(3), Mumbai

Appeals are allowed, as above

ITA 3153/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Kacha

dismissing the appeals of the assessee M/s. Bayer CropScience Limited as infructuous in terms of clause 4(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 vide similarly worded but separate orders dated 13.06.2022. 2. It was pointed out, by referring to Ground of Appeal ... Tribunal and not pending before the learned CIT(A).” that it is not the assessee which has opted to settle the dispute under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 but M/s. Monsanto India Limited, which is the entity that has amalgamated/merged with the assessee as per order of NCLT w.e.f

Bayer Cropscience Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 15(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeals are allowed, as above

ITA 3152/MUM/2022[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Kacha

dismissing the appeals of the assessee M/s. Bayer CropScience Limited as infructuous in terms of clause 4(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 vide similarly worded but separate orders dated 13.06.2022. 2. It was pointed out, by referring to Ground of Appeal ... Tribunal and not pending before the learned CIT(A).” that it is not the assessee which has opted to settle the dispute under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 but M/s. Monsanto India Limited, which is the entity that has amalgamated/merged with the assessee as per order of NCLT w.e.f

Bayer Cropscience Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (10)(3), Mumbai

Appeals are allowed, as above

ITA 3151/MUM/2022[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Kacha

dismissing the appeals of the assessee M/s. Bayer CropScience Limited as infructuous in terms of clause 4(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 vide similarly worded but separate orders dated 13.06.2022. 2. It was pointed out, by referring to Ground of Appeal ... Tribunal and not pending before the learned CIT(A).” that it is not the assessee which has opted to settle the dispute under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 but M/s. Monsanto India Limited, which is the entity that has amalgamated/merged with the assessee as per order of NCLT w.e.f

Bayer Cropscience Limited, Thane vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 10(3), Mumbai

Appeals are allowed, as above

ITA 3150/MUM/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Kacha

dismissing the appeals of the assessee M/s. Bayer CropScience Limited as infructuous in terms of clause 4(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 vide similarly worded but separate orders dated 13.06.2022. 2. It was pointed out, by referring to Ground of Appeal ... Tribunal and not pending before the learned CIT(A).” that it is not the assessee which has opted to settle the dispute under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 but M/s. Monsanto India Limited, which is the entity that has amalgamated/merged with the assessee as per order of NCLT w.e.f

Bayer Cropscience Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 10(3), Mumbai

Appeals are allowed, as above

ITA 3149/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Kacha

dismissing the appeals of the assessee M/s. Bayer CropScience Limited as infructuous in terms of clause 4(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 vide similarly worded but separate orders dated 13.06.2022. 2. It was pointed out, by referring to Ground of Appeal ... Tribunal and not pending before the learned CIT(A).” that it is not the assessee which has opted to settle the dispute under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 but M/s. Monsanto India Limited, which is the entity that has amalgamated/merged with the assessee as per order of NCLT w.e.f

Dasappasetty Rajanna, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(3), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 131/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H., ITPFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Bengaluru for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The assessee opted to settle the issue disputed in this appeal under the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Principal CIT, however, rejected the declaration made under the aforesaid Act. The assessee filed Writ Petition No.21727/2021 before

M/S. Magnet Foundry Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 4(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1687/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1687/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Magnet Foundry Suppliers I.T.O., Ward - 4(2), Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. Vs 7/1, Sukhlal Jhari Lane 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700007 Pan : Aafcm3128B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sagar Jain, Fca Revenue By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajpal Yadav: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -17, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 12/04/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. In This Case, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Withdrawal Of This Appeal On The Ground That The Appeal Has Been Settled Under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Assessee Has Duly Filed The Copy Of The Certificate In Form 5 For Full & Final Settlement Of Tax Arrear Under Section 5(2) R.W.S. 6 Of The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. 3. Keeping In View These Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Especially The Fact That The Assessee Has Duly Complied With The Necessary Requirements Under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, Permission As Sought By The Assessee Is Granted & This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Dismissed As Withdrawn. 4. In The Result, Appeal Of The Assessee Is Dismissed As Withdrawn. Order Pronounced In The Court On 16Th December, 2022 At Kolkata. (Girish Agrawal) Vice-Kolkata, Dated 16/12/2022 *Sc Srps

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT

Section 250Section 5(2)

assessee has filed an application seeking withdrawal of this appeal on the ground that the appeal has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The assessee has duly filed the copy of the certificate in Form 5 for full and final settlement of tax arrear under ... Section 5(2) r.w.s. 6 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. 3. Keeping in view these facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that the assessee has duly complied with the necessary requirements under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, permission as sought by the assessee

Hitesh S. Bhagat, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 18(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5711/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkarni

Section 143(3)Section 250

outset, submitted that the assessee has opted for the settlement of its tax dispute for the year under consideration under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 (“VSV Scheme”). In this regard, the learned D.R. placed on record Form no.5, issued by the Designated Authority under the VSV Scheme ... ITAT, Mumbai vide appeal No. ITA No. 10/M/2020 which is pending before Hon'ble Tribunal. 4. Meanwhile, the assessee opted for Vivad se Vishwas Scheme against ITA No.10/M/2020. Consequently, Form 5 was issued to the assessee. 5. In view of the above, it is requested that the above facts, clarifying

Dheeraj Babulal Shah, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -17, Mumbai

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

ITA 886/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledheeraj Babulal Shah V. Pr.Cit – Mumbai – 17 C/O. D.C. Bothra & Co.Llp (Ca) Room No. 120, 1St Floor {Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Co.} Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India Nana Chowk, Mumbai - 400007 Pan: Arwps1458D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Rajkumar Singh Department Represented By : Shri S.H. Usmani

Section 1Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

appeal on 03/01/2020 with Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals)-45, Mumbai However assessee has opted to settle the said disputes under The Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 and accordingly application made under the said Act has been processed and on receipt of Form No.3 and after making the payment

M/S Maharashtra Weigh Bridge, Mumbai vs. ACIT 26 (2), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 6979/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perumpura

Section 143(3)Section 5(2)Section 6

Appellant had placed on record request for withdrawal of the appeal having opted to settle the matter under the provisions of Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DTVSV Act’). The Appellant had placed on record order of full and final settlement of tax arrears

Sarovar Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1705/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka GhiyaFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271DSection 5(2)

erred in passing the order by treating the appeal as infructuous on the basis that the assessee had opted under the Direct Taxes Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020 without considering that the Sarovar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1750/Mum./2022 assessee had not opted under the Direct Taxes Vivad se Vishwas ... Income Tax Act. 1961 (the Act) dated 31.07 2019. The Ld. CIT(A) has assumed that the assessee has opted under Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020 for the appeal under consideration based on the information available on ITBA portal of the Income Tax Department without considering that

ACIT, Chennai vs. Calchennai Mobile Work P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as

ITA 630/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 630/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P.M. Senthil Kumar, JCIT

settled. He, also further submitted that, as regards assessee’s appeal on the very same issue, has been settled under Direct Taxes Vivad se Vishwas, 2020 scheme and said fact needs to :-6-: ITA. No:630/Chny/2017 be considered while computing the income in terms of APA between the assessee