← 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

M/S. Opg Agro Fams Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. DCIT, CC- 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 589/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal,CAFor Respondent: Shri Marudhu Pandian, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)

assessment year 2014-15. 15. At the outset, the ld.AR for the assessee stated that the assessee had utilized the Direct Taxes ‘Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020’ to settle pending disputes relating to Direct Taxes for this assessment year. The ld.AR also stated that the assessee had paid

M/S. Opg Agro Fams Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. DCIT, CC- 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 588/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal,CAFor Respondent: Shri Marudhu Pandian, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)

assessment year 2014-15. 15. At the outset, the ld.AR for the assessee stated that the assessee had utilized the Direct Taxes ‘Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020’ to settle pending disputes relating to Direct Taxes for this assessment year. The ld.AR also stated that the assessee had paid

M/S. Opg Agro Fams Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. DCIT, CC- 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 587/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal,CAFor Respondent: Shri Marudhu Pandian, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)

assessment year 2014-15. 15. At the outset, the ld.AR for the assessee stated that the assessee had utilized the Direct Taxes ‘Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020’ to settle pending disputes relating to Direct Taxes for this assessment year. The ld.AR also stated that the assessee had paid

Sri. Pavan Kandkur, Hubballi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubballi

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

ITA 522/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Pavan Kandkur Vs Principle Commissioner Of Cts No. 3046, Hirepeth Nagar Income Tax Near Akkikonda Aayakar Bhavan Hubballi 580020 Navanagar Pan – Anipk4256B Hubballi 580025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Balram R. Rao, Adv. Revenue By: Ms. Neera Malmotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/11/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit, Hubali Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 23.03.2022 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Conditions 1. Precedent Being Absent The Proceedings-Initiated U/S.263 Of The Act Was Opposed To Law & The Order Passed U/S.263 Is Liable To Be Cancelled. On The Facts There Being No Error Much Less An Error Prejudicial To The 2. Interest Of Revenue, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ought To Have Refrained From Invoking The Provisions Of Sec.263 Of The Act. The Learned Commissioner Ought To Have Considered The Submissions 3. Made By The Appellant & Ought Not To Have Invoked The Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malmotra, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 5(3)Section 8

with the Income Tax Department. 10. The Ld. CIT erred in relying on section 5(3) and section 8 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme Act 2020 in order to revise the order passed under 143(3) of the Act dated 23/12/2019. 3. The brief facts ... assessee has opted for DTVSV the PCIT held as under: - “6. The Assessee has stated that he has opted for the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and has filed Form-4 under the VsV Scheme. He has not stated that any Form-5 has been issued and if Form

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2056/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2022AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 244Section 244ASection 244A(1)(b)

Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Commissioner (Appeals)) on the following among other grounds: Appeal has no connection with the declaration submitted under Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without appreciating the fact that the appeal has no connection with the application ... declaration filed by the appellant for opting the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. 2.The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without granting any opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the appeal was with respect to the interest under

Rachna Anand Singh, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-38, Mumbai

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

ITA 3985/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Rachna Anand Singh Cit(A)-38, 605, 6Th Floor, Elevant Mahavir Classic, Mumbai Opp. Git, Gate No. 5, Saki Vi, Vs. Andheri Powai, Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 11.08.2022
Section 250Section 68

record. It is observed the ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) made a submission that the assessee has preferred an application under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 and that Form No.3 has been received from the A.O. against which the assessee is said to have made the payment

M/S Essity India Pvt Ltd (Formrly Known As M/S Bsn Medical Pvt Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12 (1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed having been become infructuous

ITA 7007/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Samruddhi Dhanjay Hande, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 2

appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, the Ld. D.R., at the outset, brought to our notice that the assessee has opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and has brought on record form No.3 issued by the revenue authorities. 3. In view of the matter, the present appeal

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

ITA 2891/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Jr. Standing Counsel for Dept. (DR)
Section 192Section 195Section 40Section 80JSection 9(1)(vii)

considered as capital in nature. Without prejudice to the above, we wish to mention that the Appellant has filed a declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme in relation to 201(1) proceedings initiated by DCII (International Taxation) including the issue in relation to deduction of tax on software expenses

M/S Champion Advance Materials Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1974/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)

r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The impugned appeal arises from the proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The assessee had availed Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme in respect of disputes arising out of assessment framed u/s.143(3) of the Act. This fact was stated before ... before the ld. CIT(A) on the scheduled date of hearing. However, the ld. CIT(A) erred in concluding that assessee had availed Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Before us the ld. AR stated that assessee had not availed Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for settling

M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd (Sucessor to Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation 3(2) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1813/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Lovish Kumar
Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 4(2)

under section 250 of the income tax act, 1961, treating the appeal as withdrawn as per section 4(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)- NFAC failed to appreciate the fact ... that the appellant has not opted for Vivad se Vishwas Scheme in respect of order dated 30.03.2021 passed under section 201(1) and 201(1A) r.w.s 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by International Taxation-3(2)(2), Mumbai. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case

Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 413/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.413/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 192Section 195Section 37Section 40Section 92C

currently pending before the Jurisdictional assessing officer. • For AY 2012-13, the company has opted to close the pending appeal under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 and has accordingly filed Its Form 1, Form 2 and Forma for the same. The company is currently awaiting the receipt of Form

Monopoly Innovations Pvt. Ltd., Raigad vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2012/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha
Section 200ASection 234E

observe from the record that assessee has submitted before the Assessing Officer as well as Ld.CIT(A) that assessee has opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme to settle the disputed tax. However, both the authorities rejected the claim of the assessee for the reason that assessee has not furnished Form ... submit the relevant informations like Form No. 1, 2, and 3 or they should have verified internally with the authorities who are dealing Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme before rejecting the claim of the assessee. Therefore, we are inclined to remit this issue back to the file of Ld.CIT

Monopoly Innovations Pvt Ltd., Raigad vs. Asst. Comm. of Income Tax, CPC-TDS, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2011/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha
Section 200ASection 234E

observe from the record that assessee has submitted before the Assessing Officer as well as Ld.CIT(A) that assessee has opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme to settle the disputed tax. However, both the authorities rejected the claim of the assessee for the reason that assessee has not furnished Form ... submit the relevant informations like Form No. 1, 2, and 3 or they should have verified internally with the authorities who are dealing Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme before rejecting the claim of the assessee. Therefore, we are inclined to remit this issue back to the file of Ld.CIT

Monopoly Innovations Pvt Ltd., Raigad vs. Asst. Comm. of Income Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2010/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha
Section 200ASection 234E

observe from the record that assessee has submitted before the Assessing Officer as well as Ld.CIT(A) that assessee has opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme to settle the disputed tax. However, both the authorities rejected the claim of the assessee for the reason that assessee has not furnished Form ... submit the relevant informations like Form No. 1, 2, and 3 or they should have verified internally with the authorities who are dealing Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme before rejecting the claim of the assessee. Therefore, we are inclined to remit this issue back to the file of Ld.CIT

Arun Ramkumar Educational Trust, Chennai vs. DDIT Exemptions III, Chennai

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

ITA 1010/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1010/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Arun Ramkumar- V. The Dy.Director Of Income Educational Trust, Tax, Exemptions-Iii, New No.21, Old No.11, Chennai. Plot No.4, 1St Floor, Sivaraman Street, Triplicane, Chennai.

For Appellant: Mr.T.Vasudevan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

time of hearing, learned counsel for the assessee has filed a letter along with Form No.5 issued by the Department under ‘Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020’ and :: 2 :: submitted that the assessee has availed the VSVS scheme to settle its pending disputes. The ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted

Commscope India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Andrew Telecommunications India Private Limited), Goa vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 678/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Commscope India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Andrew The Commissioner Telecommunications Of Income Tax India Pvt. Ltd.), (Appeals), Plot No. N2, Phase Iv, Nfac, Verna Industrial Vs. Delhi. Estate Verna, Salcete, Goa – 403 722. Pan: Aabca8820A Appellant Respondent : Ms. Vaidehi G., Ca & Assessee By Shri Dhiraj R, Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Baseganni, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 06/09/2021 Passed By Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Only Allegation Raised By The Ld.Ar Is That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal By Holding As Under:

For Respondent: Ms. Vaidehi G., CA &
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 201Section 4

dismissed the appeal by holding as under: Page 2 of 3 “2.0 It is noted that the appellant opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme vide application dated 18.03.2021. Pursuant thereto, the PCIT (Central), Bengaluru has certified the full and final payment of Rs. 0/- as taxes ... view of the above, the appeal is treated as infructuous as sub section 2 of section 4 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.” 3. However, the Ld.AR submitted that assessee filed VsV scheme for order passed u/s. 143(3) dated 01/12/2016 in case of CommScope India

Abhilasha Venture, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 1027/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleabhilasha Venture Vs. Principal Commissioner A/35, Patil Bhuvan, Of Income Tax- 17, N.S.B Road, Mumbai-400051 Mulund (West), Mumbai-400080 Pan No. Aanfa5123H Appellant Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 263Section 3

opted for the resolutionof its disputed tax/tax arrears and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto as per the provisions of The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 and the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Rules, 2020issued thereunder. The appellant has made an application in Form 1 dated 11.11.2020 before ... PCIT, Mumbai-17, the Designated Authority under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Designated Authority has issued the necessary Certificate in Form No. 3 on 26.12.2020 certifying the amounts payable by the present appellant towards full and final settlement of its disputed tax/tax arrears. Pursuant thereto

Itp Pblishing India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 12 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 4409/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

seeking withdrawal of the appeal and the assessee has also filed Form No. 3, on the ground that the matter is settled under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. 2. Learned Departmental Representative does not oppose the prayer so made by the assessee. 3. There is no dispute that once ... matter is resolved under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. 4. In view of the above position, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we deem it fit and proper to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. Assessment Year: 2014-15 Page

Dr. Sankaran Sundar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(7), Bangalore

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

ITA 572/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri. Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

I.T.Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. During the course of appellate proceedings, the matter was settled under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020 (VSVS 2020). 3. Subsequently, penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the I.T.Act were initiated by the A.O. vide show cause dated 22.04.2021. In response ... direction to the learned assessing officer to issue refund of penalty after considering the fact of the appellant availing the benefit of Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme- 2020 and Form No.5 was granted by the designated authority in the appellate order on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Without

Kanchi & Sons Imports P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 6(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1775/MUM/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalkanchi & Son Imports P. Ltd. 1501, Mahindra Heights, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400034. Pan: Aacck0634K ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-6(3)(3), 524, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Dinesh Shah & Shreya Doshi Respondent By : Sh. Pramod Nikalje Date Of Hearing : 15/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Dinesh Shah & Shreya DoshiFor Respondent: Sh. Pramod Nikalje
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 70Section 72

appeal. Final hearing in this case was done on 15th June 2022. Before that hearing 4. itself assessee opted for the direct tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act 2020(VSVS) and paid Rs 361994/- as full and final payment as quantified under the scheme of VSVS. 5. Assessee informs this bench