“investigation wing”

Manoharlal Kanayalal Takhtani, Bandra vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Manoharlal Deputy Commissioner Of Kanayalal Takhtani Income Tax, Circle 22(1) 702, Dheerajdhan, Pirmal Chambers, Vs. St. Alexious Road, Dr. S. S. Rao Marg, Bandra (West) S.O., Parel- 400012. Mumbai- 400052. Pan:Aabpt2851P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For : : Ms. Manisha Ghind, A.R. Assessee By Revenue By : Smt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, D.R.

well as the Ld. CIT(A) and it is found that the Ld. AO had received information from the Investigation Wing of the department that assessee had taken accommodation entries amounting to Rs.8,26,115/- from two persons 5 M/s. Manoharlal Kanayalal Takhtani who were dummies of the proprietor Shri

Smt. Sneha Ankit Salecha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office, Ward, 19(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

sale of shares and treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 merely on the basis of input of Investigation wing and without properly appreciating the documentary evidences provided by the Appellant. The addition was further confirmed by CIT (A) that profit arising from purchase and sale of penny ... addition of Rs. 1,11,69,765/- as unexplained income u/s 68 by not providing the specific statements/information (pertaining to alleged activities) supplied by Investigation wing to the Appellant and thereby denying the opportunity of cross examination of those parties who might have made statements before Investigation wing about

Naresh Manakchand Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

from assessment completed consequent to search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, Pune on 20.10.2016 in connection with the searches carried out on ‘Ranka’ Group of cases, whereas the appeals

Naresh Manakchand Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

from assessment completed consequent to search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, Pune on 20.10.2016 in connection with the searches carried out on ‘Ranka’ Group of cases, whereas the appeals

Naresh Manakchand Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

from assessment completed consequent to search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, Pune on 20.10.2016 in connection with the searches carried out on ‘Ranka’ Group of cases, whereas the appeals

Naresh Manakchand Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

from assessment completed consequent to search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act') conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, Pune on 20.10.2016 in connection with the searches carried out on ‘Ranka' Group of cases, whereas the appeals

Naresh Manakchand Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

from assessment completed consequent to search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, Pune on 20.10.2016 in connection with the searches carried out on ‘Ranka’ Group of cases, whereas the appeals

Naresh Manakchand Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

from assessment completed consequent to search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, Pune on 20.10.2016 in connection with the searches carried out on ‘Ranka’ Group of cases, whereas the appeals

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Afcons Infrastructure Limited, Andheri West

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: us. The Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Revenue had filed the appeal electronically and thereafter, furnished appeals in physical form. Two separate appeal numbers, being ITA No. 1152/Mum/2024 and ITA No. 1153/Mum/2024, were inadvertently allotted by the Registry for the same appeal. It was submitted that ITA No. 1152/Mum/2024 listed before us be treated as a duplicate appeal and be dismissed as withdrawn. The Learned Authorized Representative did not have any objecti

27/04/2015. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings were initiated in the case of the Appellant under Section 147 of the Act based on information received from the Investigation Wing – Deputy Director Income Tax (Investigation) – Unit 4(3), Mumbai and notice, dated 27/03/2018, was issued under Section 148 of the Act. Subsequently, reassessment proceedings ... their office addresses. The Assessee also failed to produce the proprietor/key-persons of the aforesaid parties during the assessment proceedings. As per the report of Investigation Wing money deposited in the bank accounts of the aforesaid parties were withdrawn soon thereafter. This clearly showed that the entities were shell entities

Rupesh Dhirajlal Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhrirupesh Dhirajlal Shah Vs. Assessing It Officer-Ward Flat No. 6, 1St Floor, 22(3)(1) Methdoot Building, Piramal Chamber, Gulmohar Cross Road No. Lalbaug, 6, Nr. Lahiri House, Jvpd Parel, Mumbai-400012 Sceheme, Vileparle West, Mumbai-400049 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafps9285G Appellant .. Respondent

facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed its return of income for AY 2011-12. Information was received from the Investigation Wing on 27.03.2018 alleging that M/s. VAS Infrastructure Ltd. is a penny stock scrip which has been used by beneficiaries to launder money. Since ... details filed by the assessee and based on outcome of investigation done by the Page 6 of 11 A.Y. 2011-12 Rupesh Dirajlal Shah Investigation Wing of the department, the AO held the sale proceeds of Rs. 18,19,089/- as unexplained cash credit

M/S. Harivardhan Steel & Alloys, Thane vs. ITO-2(1), Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

erred in issuing notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act on the basis of information from the Investigation wing only without application of mind and analysing the basic facts of the case. The notice issued on the basis of borrowed satisfaction is illegal and void and consequently, assessment based

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Mukesh Pruthviram Chouhan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriincome Tax Officer Vs. Mukesh Pruthviram Room No. 713, Kautilya Chouhan Bhavan, Income Tax Office, 305, Dhobhighat, Suratbai Bandra Kurla Complex, Chawl, Chincholi Phatak, Bandra (E), Malad(E), Maharashtra-400051 Maharashtra-400097 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aeupc2821B Appellant .. Respondent

Page 4 of 6 A.Y.2014-15 Mukesh Pruthviram Chouhan e. The impugned addition was made on the basis of detailed investigation report accompanied by the Investigation Wing and after making necessary enquiries and recording of assessee’s statement by the AO. f. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition simply