“Vivad se Vishwas”

Dy CIT, Circle-16(1), Mumbai vs. Priyanka Chopra, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 16(1) V. Priyanka Chopra Room No. 439, 4Th Floor B-807, Raj Classic Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Yari Road, Versova Mumbai - 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Acxpc1741R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Joijode Department By : Shri R.A. Dhyani

Addition of ₹.50 Lacs for purchase of studio Aesthetique. 4. In this regard he submitted that assessee had already applied for Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas (DTVSV) Act, 2020 for the A.Y. 2008-09 against the quantum additions which were pending before Hon’ble 3 Priyanka Chopra Bombay High Court ... interest, if the assessee pays the disputed tax within the specified period. Further he brought to our notice various forms of Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, which assessee has filed and received from the Department (i.e., Forms 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5). Accordingly, he prayed that penalty order

M/S. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 14(1) (2), Mumbai

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

Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “A. DISMISSAL OF APPEAL UNDER THE DIRECT TAX VIVAD SE VISHWAS ACT. 2020: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal ... Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] erred in dismissing the appeal as withdrawn under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (VSV) in respect of appeal no. CIT(A) 22, Mumbai/10020/2019-20 filed against the Assessment Order passed u/s. 143(3) rws 147 of the Act dated

ACIT Cir. 11(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Yahoo India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Us. 3. Learned Departmental Representative Does Not Oppose The Prayer So Made By The Assessee & Learned Departmental Representative Has Agreed That The Appeal Of The Revenue May Be Dismissed As Withdrawn With A Right Of Revival Of The Appeal, In Case The Factual Information, For Any Reason Whatsoever, Is Found To Be Incorrect. Assessment Year: 2010-11 Page 2 Of 2 4. There Is No Dispute That Once The Matter Is Resolved Under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020, The Related Appeal Is Required To Be Withdrawn.

noticed that the assessee has moved petition seeking withdrawal of the appeal on the ground that the matter is settled under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The related documents have also been filed before us. 3. Learned Departmental Representative does not oppose the prayer so made by the assessee ... incorrect. Assessment Year: 2010-11 Page 2 of 2 4. There is no dispute that once the matter is resolved under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. 5. In view of the above position, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Yahoo India P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Us. 3. Learned Departmental Representative Does Not Oppose The Prayer So Made By The Assessee & Learned Departmental Representative Has Agreed That The Appeal Of The Revenue May Be Dismissed As Withdrawn With A Right Of Revival Of The Appeal, In Case The Factual Information, For Any Reason Whatsoever, Is Found To Be Incorrect. Assessment Year: 2009-10 Page 2 Of 2 4. There Is No Dispute That Once The Matter Is Resolved Under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020, The Related Appeal Is Required To Be Withdrawn.

noticed that the assessee has moved petition seeking withdrawal of the appeal on the ground that the matter is settled under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The related documents have also been filed before us. 3. Learned Departmental Representative does not oppose the prayer so made by the assessee ... incorrect. Assessment Year: 2009-10 Page 2 of 2 4. There is no dispute that once the matter is resolved under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. 5. In view of the above position, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case

Apolo Extrusion Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 15 (1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleapolo Extrusion Pvt Ltd Vs. Ito – 15(1)(1) 6, Hindustan Kohinoor Aayakar Bhavan, Industrial Complex, Mumbai-400020. Lbs Marg, Vikhroli West,Mumbai – 400072. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahca0424H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri S.G. Mehta.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 24, Mumbai Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. At The Time Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. The Assessee Has Submitted A Letter Dated 25- 05-2022 Mentioning That The Assessee Has Intend To Settle The Tax Litigation By Opting For ‘Vivad Se Vishwas Apolo Extrusion Pvt Ltd, Mumbai Scheme 2020’ (Vsvs2020) & Filed An Application Under Vsvs Rules 2020. Contra, The Ld. Dr Has No Objections.

assessee has submitted a letter dated 25- 05-2022 mentioning that the assessee has intend to settle the tax litigation by opting for ‘Vivad se Vishwas Apolo Extrusion Pvt Ltd, Mumbai Scheme 2020’ (VSVS2020) and filed an application under VSVS Rules 2020. Contra, the Ld. DR has no objections

Smt. Renu Devi Modi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 18(3)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesmt.Renu Devi Modi, Vs. Ito Ward 18(3)(2) 6Th E-8, Bhangwadi, Floor, Earnest House, Kalbadevi Road, Nariman Point, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpm5124A Appellant .. Respondent Assessee Represented By : None (A’S Letter Dt. 29.04.2022) Department Represented By Mr.R.A. Dhyani, Sr.Dr : Date Of Hearing 06.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. At The Time Hearing, A Letter Dated 29-04-2022 Was Submitted Mentioning That The Assessee Intend To Settle The Tax Litigation By Opting For ‘Vivad Se Vishwas Smt Renu Devi Modi Vs Ito Mumbai Scheme 2020’ (Vsvs 2020) & Received Form. No 3&5 Under Vsvs Rules 2020. Contra, The Ld. Dr Has No Objections.

time hearing, a letter dated 29-04-2022 was submitted mentioning that the assessee intend to settle the tax litigation by opting for ‘Vivad se Vishwas Smt Renu Devi Modi Vs Ito Mumbai Scheme 2020’ (VSVS 2020) and received Form. no 3&5 under VSVS Rules 2020. Contra

M/S. Steling Exports in., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - 23(3), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 23/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Sterling Exports Inc. बिधम/ Deputy Commissioner Of 405, Konark Darshan-B, Income Tax -23(3), Vs. Zaver Road, Mulund (West), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai - 400080 Bandra-Kurla Complex, Pan : Aalfs8235Q Mumbai - 400051 (अपीलाथी /Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी) / Respondent) For The Appellant/Assessee: Shri Shashank Mehta For The Respondent/Revenue: Shri B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary: 1. By Way Of The Present Appeal The Appellant/Assessee Has Challenged The Order Dated, 24.08.2016 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 40, Mumbai [Hereafter Referred To As „The Cit(A)‟] For The Assessment Year 2010-11, Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Had Dismissed The Appeal Against The Assessment Order, Dated 08.03.2013, Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereafter Referred To As „The Act‟).

this regard. 4. Recently, when the government promoted and insisted the litigant taxpayers to opt for the dispute resolution scheme under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 and settle the disputes, we considered it prudent to avail the benefit of this scheme. 5. However, when we consulted our Chartered Accountant ... knowledge of the Appellant only after the Appellant consulted the Chartered Accountant again to opt for settlement of dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. 4. In our view, the Appellant has failed to show sufficient cause for condoning delay of 1460 days in filing the appeal. Though

Chimanlal Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 4, Thane

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1474/Mum/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10

submitted that the assessee has settled the disputed issue under ‘Vivad Se Vishas Scheme 2020’and already filed the Form No.5, prescribed under ‘Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020’ Rules. 3. Contra, the Ld. DR has no serious objection for withdrawal of such appeal. ITA 1474/MUM/2020 Mr. Chimanlal, Mehta, Mumbai

Vishnulene Polyfab Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 4(3)(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Vide letter dated 11.04.2022, the assessee has requested for withdrawal of the appeal, as the assessee had preferred settlement under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (“VSV Act”) and Form 5 has been issued on 12.02.2021 towards full and final settlement of tax arrears for the VISHNULENE POLYFAB

Hiren V. Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT-25(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

assessment year 2011–12. 2. The assessee, vide its letter dated 09.04.2022, submitted that it had preferred settlement under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (“VSV Act”) and filed necessary Form 1. The assessee further submitted that Hiren V. Shah ITA no.2228/Mum./2021 pursuant thereto, Form 3 under section

Pragati Trading Co., Mumbai vs. ITO - 27(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is disposed of by treating the same as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pragati Trading Co. Vs. Ito 27(2)(5) B/154, Kanara Business Centre, Mumbai 400073 Off Ghatkopar Link Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai 400075 Appellant. Respondent.

under :- “3. The learned counsel for the appellant / assessee, on instructions, submitted that the appellant / assessee intends to avail the benefit of Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme („VVS Scheme‟ for brevity) and in this regard, the assessee is taking steps to file the application / declaration in Form ... decide the Substantial Questions of Law framed for consideration on account of certain subsequent developments. The Government of India enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) to provide for resolution of disputed tax and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto

Proma Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Proma Industries Limited, Income Tax Officer-10(3)(4), 1803, Lodha Supremes, Saki Vihar Room No. 554, 5Th Floor, Road, Opp. Mtnl Exchange, Powai, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400072. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacp 6230 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. B.K. Bagchi, Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2022

Assessing Officer. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that issue in dispute has been settled under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, the assessee seeks to withdraw the appeal. 3. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) did not object. The request of the assessee withdrawing appeal

Utv Software Communications Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhutv Software Vs. National Faceless Appeal Communications Private Centre, Delhi Limited Acit-Circle 16(1) (As A Successor To Indiagames Aayakar Bhavan, Limited) Marine Lines Star House, Urmi Estate, Mumbai 95, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaci6167R Appellant .. Respondent

erred in passing the order under section 250 of the Act without considering the provisions of section 4(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 2 ITA No.2024/Mum/2021 A.Y.2013-14 UTV Software Communications Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle 16(1) (‘VsV Act') as well as the certificate ... that ld. CIT(A) has incorrectly adjudicated the appeal of the assessee on merit without considering that assessee has filed declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. In this regard the ld. Counsel has filed paper book comprising copies of Form No. 1 to Form No. 6 filed under

Hdb Employees Welfare Trust, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -20, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Assessment Order under question u/s. 263 of The ITA, 1961 and also erred In not appreciating that the dispute being ended under VSVS (Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme) could not be construed that the Appellant has acquiesced in the decision on the disputed issue by settling the dispute (Explanation to Section ... Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020). 5. The Learned Pr. CIT - 20, Mumbai has erred in passing the Order u/s. 263 of The ITA, 1961 without granting enough opportunity to the Appellant to make elaborate submission consisting of various case laws and Explanatory Memorandum of the Government regarding the changing aspects

Zubin Zainuddin, Mumbai vs. ACIT 21 (3), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn subject to the observation recorded hereinabove

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhzubin Zainuddin Vs. Acit-21(3) 3101 & 3102, Raheja Piramal Chamber, Atlantis, Ganpatrao Mumbai Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W) Mumbai – 400 013

time of hearing the ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee has opted this appeal for Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 in order to settle the aforesaid matter pending before the Tribunal. It is 2 ITA Nos. 1243/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 Zubin Zainuddin Vs. ACIT -21(3) stated ... dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, subject to a rider that in the unlikely event of the matter not being resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme the assessee shall have liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration of his appeal within the time limit provided in the Act. 5. Resultantly

Samrat Amarjit Nagi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Amarjit Nagi, Deputy Commissioner Of B-602, Foreshore Juhu Tara Road, Income Tax-Cc-3(2), Santacruz West, Vs. 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400049. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Abtpn 3900 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/04/2022

filed a letter wherein it is submitted that assessee wish to withdraw the appeal as dispute has been settled by the assessee under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form No. 3 has already been issued by the competent authority. 3. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) did not object to withdrawal ... appeal by the assessee. 4. In view of the issue in dispute involved in the appeal already settled under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the assessee is permitted to withdraw the appeal and accordingly same as dismissed as infructuous. Samrat Amarjit Nagi 3 5. In the result, the appeal filed

Naimesh Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

recalled, since, the earlier order was an ex-parte order. Now, the assessee before us submits that assessee wishes to opt for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (VsV) for the disposal of appeal. Hence, wishes to withdraw the appeal. 3. We have heard the ld.DR and perused the record. Since, assesse