“direct tax vivad se vishwas”

Settlement & AmnestyDTVSV 2020DTVSV 20202,154 judgments

Judgments citing direct tax vivad se vishwas

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

Appeals) in 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

filed an 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

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

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

issues 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

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)

order 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 ... dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the basis that assessee has opted for resolution of this dispute under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (‘VSV Act’). Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. 5. During the course of hearing, learned Authorised Representative (‘learned AR’) submitted that

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

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

this 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

Creative Ashtech Powr Projects P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT-14(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 946/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalecreative Ashtech Power Vs. Acit – 14(1)(2) Projects Pvt Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 7Th Floor, Raheja Point I, M.K.Road, Opp Vakola Market, Mumbai – 400020. Nehru Road,Santacruz (E) Mumbai- 400055. Pan/Gir No. : Aadcd1054F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr. Amit Khatiwala.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Ganesh Bare. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr. Amit Khatiwala.ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ganesh Bare. CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: A. DISMISSAL OF APPEAL UNDER THE DIRECT TAX VIVAD SE VISHWAS ACT, 2020: Creative Ashtech Power Projects, Mumbai. 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) on the basis of Certificate in Form 5 bearing reference number 2216451200200121dated 20.01.2021 issued by the Pr. Commissioner of Income

Ksb Ltd. (Earlier Known As "Ksb Pumps Ltd."), Pune vs. The Dy CIT, National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nafac) Delhi, Mumbai

ITA 1210/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sambit Mishra, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 253(1)(d)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

along with notice of demand on 22 April 2021 without appreciating the fact that the Appellant had filed for dispute resolution under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 on 20 January2021, received Form 3 on 15 February 2021, paid the disputed taxes on 24 April 2021 and filed Form

Carol Info Services Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1121/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Hiren MunraFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 5(1)Section 5(2)Section 6

Appellant has made a 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’). In this regard, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant placed on record (a) declaration

Bhavna Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT -Cir- Panvel, Panvel

The appeal is treated as dismissed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(C)Section 40

that the appellant had opted "VSV" for the appeal filed. It is to be noted that the appellant had opted for the "Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme" for penalty appeal against order u/s 271(1)(C) having (Appeal No. CIT(A), Surat-1/10053/2019-20 ... dated 13.01.2021. In view of the above, the appeal is treated as infructuous as per clause 4(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. 3. Accordingly, the appeal is treated as dismissed for statistical purposes.” 7. However, assessee has come up with specific ground that

Ca (India) Technologies P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 14(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2046/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Us Submitted That The Appellant Has Opted For Settlement Under The Provisions Of Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Dtvsv Act’). In This Regard, The Ld. Authorised Representative For The Appellant Placed On Record Order Of Full & Final Settlement Of Tax Arrears Under Section 5(2) Read With Section 6 Of The Dtvsv Act In Form 5 [Acknowledgement No. 347467521140322]. In View Of The Aforesaid, The Ld. Authorised Representative For The Appellant Requested For The Withdrawal Of The Present Appeal. The Learned Departmental Representative Did Not Have Any Objections To The Aforesaid Request.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh MalpaniFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 5(2)Section 6

Authorised Representative for the Appellant appearing before us submitted that the Appellant has opted for settlement under the provisions of Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DTVSV Act’). In this regard, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant placed on record order of full

Morgan Stanley Advantage Services P Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (Apeals), Nationa Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1083/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalmorgan Stanley Advantage Services Pvt. Ltd. Athena Building No.5, Sector-30, Mindspace, Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400090 Pan: Aaeca3400B ...... Appellant Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Sunil M. Lala Respondent By : Sh. Amol B. Kirtane Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre (Nfac), Delhi. [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Vide Order Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Disallowance Of Expenditure Claimed Towards Employee Stock Option Scheme (Esop) Under Section 37(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act) Amounting To Rs 1,84,75,816. In This Regard, The Learned Cit(A)/ Learned Assessing Officer Has, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Erred On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil M. LalaFor Respondent: Sh. Amol B. Kirtane

Section 143(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 30Section 37(1)

following ground: (i) In erroneously concluding that the appeal by the Appellant filed against the CIT(A) Order is settled under the Direct tax Vivad se Vishwas Act 2020, and consequentially, erroneously dismissing the appeal by treating it as infructuous. Each of the grounds of appeal referred above is separate ... been paid by the appellant. In view of this, the appeal is treated as infructuous as per the provisions of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. 3. Accordingly, the appeal is treated as dismissed for statistical purposes.” 9. Appellant has entered into an agreement with MSDW International Employee