Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 [DTVSVA]

S.4: Filing of declaration and particulars to be furnished – Peendency of appeal – Filing of declaration- Pendency of miscellaneous application before the Appellate Tribunal- Rejection of application by the Principal Commissioner was held to be not valid – PCIT was to be directed to issue acknowledgement in Form No. 3 against application made by assessee in Form No. 1 and Form No. 2 . [ S. 2 (1)j), Income tax Act, 1961 , S. 254(1), 254(2) 264 , Art . 226 ]

S. 2(9) : Benami Property transactions-Benami Transaction (Position prior to 1-11-2016)-Transaction which took place prior to 1-11-2016-Order of High Court is affirmed. [Art. 226]

S. 2(9): Benami Property transactions-Section 2(9) of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 being prospective in nature, it could not be applied to transaction which took place prior to 1-11-2016. [Art. 226]

S. 183 : Declaration of undisclosed income-Reassessment notice was quashed. [Income-tax Act, 1961, S. 148, Art. 226]

S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source-High Court dismissed the petition to quash the proceedings. [S. 200, 204, 278B]

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Penalty notice provided less than 24 hours to assessee to appear in person or through authorized representative-Shorter period could be termed as a pure and simple breach of principles of natural justice-Assessing Officer was to be directed to give an opportunity of hearing to assessee from stage where it was left-Matter remanded.[Art. 226]

S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Reassessment-Pendency of writ petition-Revision petition filed by assessee against reassessment order was to be decided.[S. 143(3), 147, 264(4)(a), Art. 226]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash credits-Share capital-Unsecured loans-Record-Principal Commissioner had to examine all records pertaining to assessment year at time of examination by him, which included, post-search assessment proceedings and thereafter only if he found that order passed by Assessing Officer on any issue was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to interest of revenue-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed.[S. 68, 153A]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Provision for doubtful debts-Air-conditioning charges-Employees contributions(EPF/ ESI-Assessing Officer followed the order of jurisdictional High Court-Order in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd (2023) 290 Taxman 19/(2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) is considered-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed. [S. 36(1)(va), 37 (1)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Business expenditure-Specific query was raised in the original assessment proceedings-Mere failure to issue notice under section 133(6) did not warrant exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act-Order of Tribunal is affirmed.[S. 37(1), 143(3)]