What the courts have decided on section DTVSV 2024, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
Ghanshyam Dalmia v Pr. CIT (Central)
High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
My 2024 Vivad se Vishwas application was rejected under section 96 as a search case, but the only departmental action in my case was a survey. Can the authority do that?
No. Section 96(a)(i) of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 excludes an assessment year only where the assessment under section 143(3), 144, 147, 153A or 153C was made on the basis of a search initiated under section 132 or a requisition under section 132A. A survey under section 133A is consciously omitted from section 96, so the embargo does not operate; the Orissa High Court quashed the rejection and remitted the declaration for fresh consideration on merits.
-
Ramasamy HUF v Pr. CIT-3
High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
I paid under the 2020 scheme but never filed Form 4, so no final certificate came, and my appeal was then dismissed as if I had settled. Can I come into the 2024 Scheme instead?
Yes, on these facts. Under section 4(6) of the 2020 Act a declaration is presumed never to have been made where the declarant violates any condition of the Act, and in that event all proceedings and claims withdrawn under section 4 are deemed revived. The Madras High Court held that once the Tribunal had set aside the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal on the erroneous footing that the scheme had been availed, the appeal against the assessment order stood revived and alive, and directed the designated authority to accept Form 1 filed on 26 December 2024 and issue Form 2 under the 2024 Scheme.
-
ACIT v Antilia Venture Capital
ITATHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
The Revenue says my lender's settlement of her own addition under the 2024 Scheme cannot be used to show her creditworthiness, because section 92(4) says a declaration is not a concession. Is that right?
Not where the settlement is relied on only as a fact — that the source of the funds was independently examined in the lender's own reassessment and the resulting liability has attained finality. The Tribunal held that such factual reliance does not offend section 92(4) of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of a Rs 14.50 crore addition under section 68, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.