| Query | If a party has won in the ITAT, lost in the High Court and filed a Review Petition in High Court. Would he be able to take advantage of the scheme, if he so decides ?? |
| Answer | According to us yes; They can take advantages of the Scheme. Review is nothing but an extension of appeal. It can be considered as pendency of appeal . In the meeting had with the Chairman CBDT a request was made to clarify whether pendency of Rectification can be considered as pendency of Appeal . We have opined that… (read more) |
Answers to queries on Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme
| Query | The Honorable ITAT has allowed the appeal for statistical purpose and issued the order during August 2019. The AO has issued the giving effect order on 28.02.2020. The order of AO omitted to consider certail allowable deductions. The AO did not rectify the order . The assessee made appeal with Honorable CIT. The assessee prefers to go for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, provided the deductions omitted by AO is given effect. Kindly advise whether the case is eligible for the scheme and how to go about. |
| Answer | There is no specific clarification in the scheme or the FAQs. However, the order of ITAT was passed in August 2019 and as on the specified date i.e. 31 January 2020, there is no pending appeal or disputed demand for which the scheme can be opted for. The OGE is passed on 28.02.2020 against which… (read more) |
| Query | Sir, where any matter, say Bogus Capital matter or a matter where benefit of DTAA with Mauritius not conferred whereby investment made by US Company through Mauritius Company, can such declaration under VsVs be at a later stage brought under Prohibition of Benami Act considering that Section 8 restricts immunity only in relation to the matter covered in the declaration? Your clarification on the issue will be highly appreciated. |
| Answer | The assessee under the DTVSVAct, 2020 is entitled to settle his disputes in relation to the issues under question provide other conditions relating to filing of appeal in time , pendency thereof on the specified date and the presence of tax arrear are satisfied and he is not disentitled by S. 9 of the Act from filing a declaration. Section 6… (read more) |
| Query | Assessee in appeal before CIT(A) for quantum. Penalty imposed under 271AAB for both sub clause (a)and (c) of sub section(1) and this appeal is also pending before CIT(A). |
| Answer | In the present case, appeal is pending before CIT(A) for quantum as well as penalty. Penalty is levied under 2 sub clauses i.e. (a) and (C) of section 271AAB(1) of the Act. Therefore once the quantum appeal is settled, the penalty under clause (c) of section 271AAB(1) will automatically be waived off. Therefore, the penalty… (read more) |
| Query | SEARCH U/S 132 TAKEN PLACE AND BLOCK ASSESSMENT FOR A. Y. 2003-04 TO A. Y. 2009-10 COMPLETED. A. Y. 2002-03 HAS BEEN REOPENED BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148. ORDER U/S 143(3) RWS 147 PASED. WHETHER ADDITIONAL 25 % TAX TO BE PAID UNDER THE SCHEME THOUGH THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) RWS 147 OF THE ACT. |
| Answer | The search and block assessment made is for AY 2003-04 to AY 2009-10 whereas the reopening proceedings are for AY 2002-03 which is an independent appeal for the year which is not covered under search/block assessment. Therefore, if the appeal is pending for AY 2002-03 against the reopening proceedings, the same can be independently settled… (read more) |
| Query | 264 filled in Jan 19, pending as on 31.1.20 i.e. Upto here Applicant is qualified for VsV, but PCIT does not consider press note dt. 24.3.20 extending dates & disposes off 264 by rejecting it on 31.3.20. Can Assessee now file VsV ? Considering i) dispute is now not pending on specified dt. 31.1.20 but on 31.3.20 ii) Writ can be filled in High Court against 264, If yes then what would be the relevance of specified date ? Also than, all Appeals disposed after 31.1.20 also can be settled under VsV ? kindly suggest. |
| Answer | Yes, as on January 31, as per Section 2(1) (v) of the the assessee is an appellant under VSVAct, 2020 . The order passed by the PCIT is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and also ordinance . The querist is advised to file a rectification application before the PCIT . The PCIT… (read more) |
| Query | Sir, the assessee has filed appeal against the addition made at the time of processing of return of income in intimation order u/s 143(1). Such appeal is pending as on specified date. Can the assessee take benefit of the scheme under VsVS against such appeal? If the answer to the above question is affirmative, then it may further be noted that there is no option to select the order u/s 143(1) in the dorpdown box provided by the income tax department in form no.1 on income tax portal. In such cases, how to file application in from no. 1 under VsVS? |
| Answer | As per Section 2 (1)(a) (ii) of the VSVA, an ‘appellant’ means, a person in whose case an order has been passed by the Assessing Officer, or an order has been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in an appeal, or by the High Court in a writ petition, on or… (read more) |
| Query | Sir, the appeal was pending before CIT(A) as on specified date i.e. 31-01-2020. However, the CIT(A) has passed an order on 15-02-2020 deciding the appeal against the assessee. Whether in such cases, the assessee is eligible for the benefit VsVS against such decided appeal on the ground that it was pending as on specified dated i.e. 31-01-2020? |
| Answer | As clarified by Q1 of FAQ dt 4 March 2020, since appeal was pending as on 31 January 2020, taxpayer is eligible for VSV settlement irrespective of CIT(A) order passed later on. However, one may wish to consider whether in a case where CIT(A) order passed post 31 Jan 2020 has given some relief, then whether… (read more) |