An order was passed by the AO u/s 154 for rectification of the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) for the withdrawal of an allowance which in the opinion of the AO was apparently not allowable. The assessee has filed an appeal by the specified date against the order of rectification stating that the assessment order did not suffer from any mistake. The appeal is pending for disposal by the Commissioner(Appeals). The assessee’s declaration under the scheme is rejected by the authorities as not maintainable as no appeal was filed by the assessee against the withdrawal of allowance on merits.

An order is passed by the authorities in pursuance of a declaration filed by the assessee under the scheme to settle a dispute in appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) demanding that the assessee inter alia pays tax on the income for which a notice of enhancement was issued by the Commissioner(Appeals) as per the Proviso to s. 2(j). It is the case of the assessee that no such notice is received by him by the specified date.

An assessee has filed a writ petition in the high court under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order passed by the Settlement Commission. Pending the disposal of the writ, the assessee has filed a declaration u/s 4 of the scheme to settle the dispute that was being contested in the writ by accepting the order of the Settlement Commission on payment of disputed tax without interest . Please advise.

An assessee has filed a declaration u/s 4 of the scheme to settle the dispute that was being contested in an appeal before the Tribunal for A.Y. 2013-14 by the Income tax Department in respect of the relief given in appeal by the Commissioner(Appeals) against addition made to the total income by the AO on the ground that the assessee had interest income from foreign sources as was informed by a foreign Government to the Government of India under the Exchange Information Agreement between the two Governments. The authorities have rejected the declaration by invoking the provisions of clause(iv) of sub-section(a) of s.9 .

An assessee has filed a declaration u/s 4 of the scheme to settle the dispute that was being contested in an appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) for A.Y. 2017-18 in respect of the addition made to the total income, under the Income tax Act, on the ground that the assessee owned an undisclosed asset located in a foreign country, outside India. An identical addition is also made under the provisions of the Black Money Act which is separately contested in an appeal under the BMA. The assessee seeks to settle the dispute under ITA by opting under VSVt and as a consequence thereof desires to persuade the appellate authority under the BMA that income once taxed can not be doubly taxed. The authorities have rejected the declaration by invoking the provisions of clause(iii) of sub-section(a) of s.9 .

An assessee has filed a declaration u/s 4 of the scheme to settle the dispute that was being contested in an appeal before the Tribunal for A.Y. 2017-18 in respect of the addition made to the total income on the ground that the assessee was required to recognise the profit of the project in progress by following the percentage completion method prescribed by the ICDS 3 & 4 . The declaration has been accepted by the authorities and the appeal stands withdrawn as per s. 4(2)(3)(5) and s.7. The assessee has now sought relief for the adjustment in the year of completion of project A.Y. 2020-21 on account of the prior recognition of the profit .

An assessee has filed a declaration u/s 4 of the scheme to settle the dispute that was being contested in an appeal before the tribunal for A.Y. 2011-12 in respect of the addition made to the value of the closing stock u/s145A and also for disallowance of expenditure on th ground that the said expenditure pertained to the subsequent year. The declaration has been accepted by the authorities and the appeal stands withdrawn as per s. 4(2)(3)(5) and s.7. The assessee has now sought relief for the deduction for the subsequent A.Y. 2012-13 on account of the increase in the value of the opening stock and the expenditure disallowed for that year consequent to the addition made and accepted for the preceding previous year A.Y. 2011-12.

Whether a declaration is possible under the scheme, in a case where an appeal is filed and is pending on the specified date, against an order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 where the reopening and the consequent reassessment are made on the basis of a search action u/s 132 in the case of a firm where the assessee is a partner?

Whether a declaration filed u/s 4 be rejected on the ground that the appeal filed against the assessment order was held to be filed before the CIT(A) who had no jurisdiction over the assessee and also that the Form Number 35 was signed by a person not authorised u/s 140 of the Act?

Can a declaration be filed under the scheme in a case where the writ petition is filed in the High Court under Article 227, against the notice issued u/s 148, for contesting the validity of reopening?