https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771229 Delhi HC ruled that petitioner's settlement application under DTVSV Scheme was wrongly rejected. The designated authority erroneously rejected the application solely because petitioner had not claimed carry forward of loss in subsequent assessment year (AY 2023-24), concluding none of the Rule 9(1) options applied. The court held this reasoning was flawed, distinguishing between entitlement to benefit and claiming it. The dispute for AY 2022-23 fell within DTVSV Scheme scope and could be settled independently of petitioner's actions in subsequent years. Under Rule 9(1)(ii), petitioner was entitled to carry forward NIL losses as entire carry forward loss had been reduced by AO. en-us Tue, 06 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 May 2025 08:21:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771229 Delhi HC ruled that petitioner's settlement application under DTVSV Scheme was wrongly rejected. The designated authority erroneously rejected the application solely because petitioner had not claimed carry forward of loss in subsequent assessment year (AY 2023-24), concluding none of the Rule 9(1) options applied. The court held this reasoning was flawed, distinguishing between entitlement to benefit and claiming it. The dispute for AY 2022-23 fell within DTVSV Scheme scope and could be settled independently of petitioner's actions in subsequent years. Under Rule 9(1)(ii), petitioner was entitled to carry forward NIL losses as entire carry forward loss had been reduced by AO. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 06 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771229