“investigation wing”

DCIT Central Circle - 6(1), Mumbai vs. Gnp Consultancy and Solutions Private Limited, Thane

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

DDIT {investigation} and therefore the addition is correctly deleted by the learned CIT – A. viii. Explanation of the assessee during search, before the investigation Wing as well as before the learned assessing officer remains the same. ix. identical question arose in the case of the assessee for assessment year ... Page 28 of 108 iv. The fund flow statement shown by the assessee is not disputed. It is produced before the investigation wing and assessing officer. As fund flow statement remains undisputed, respective entries contained therein not been disputed individually. v. Statement recorded under section 132 (4) of the staff

Abhishek Tejraj Doshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleabhishek Tejraj Doshi V. Income Tax Officer 259, 2Nd Floor, Johari Mansion Jurisdiction Circle 19(1), Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi Mumbai, Mumbai Mumbai 400002 Pan: Aegpd9279J (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Anil Sathe Assessee Represented By : Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

operators, who are doing this business for commission, and that the capital Gain arisen on sale of such shares is arranged and colourful transaction. Investigation wing has summarized these transactions in detailed report and also provided list of company/ scrip which are being used for creating very high profit margin ... elaborately analysed various parameters with regard to claim of Bogus long term capital gain such as Findings of the Investigation Wing, Findings in the case of Assessee, Examination of persons with which assessee traded (Exit Entry provider) and analysis of cash trail (for the sake of brevity the same

Gnp Consultancy and Solutions Pvt Ltd, Nariman Point vs. DCIT Circle-6(1), Mumbai, Nariman Point

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Gnp Consultancy & Dcit Solutions Private Limited Central Circle-6(1) Room No.1905, 19 Th Floor, Plot No.91, Shop No.1 Channel Classic Chs Sector Air India Building, Nariman Vs. Point 4 Kopar Khairne, Thane Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 709 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aadcg3716B Gnp Consultancy & Dcit Solutions Private Limited Central Circle-6(1) Plot No.91, Shop No.1 Room No.1905, 19 Th Floor, Channel Classic Chs Sector Air India Building, Nariman Vs. Point 4 Kopar Khairne, Thane Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 709 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2024

DDIT {investigation} and therefore the addition is correctly deleted by the learned CIT – A. viii. Explanation of the assessee during search, before the investigation Wing as well as before the learned assessing officer remains the same. ix. identical question arose in the case of the assessee for assessment year ... Solutions Private Limited; A.Y. 21-22 iv. The fund flow statement shown by the assessee is not disputed. It is produced before the investigation wing and assessing officer. As fund flow statement remains undisputed, respective entries contained therein not been disputed individually. v. Statement recorded under section

Neeta Rajesh Lodha, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.408/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Neeta Rajesh Lodha बिधम/ Cit(Appeals)/Nfac 20/22, Shamseth Street, National Faceless Appeal, Vs. Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- Centre (Nfac), Delhi. 400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abdpl8053A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 20.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.2,61,43,231/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding The Addition Of Rs.5,22,865/- As Commission (2% Of Sales Proceeds) For Arranging Bogus Ltcg U/S 69 Of The Act.

LTCG and therefore, the claim of LTCG/exemption u/s 10 (38) of the Act was bogus. The AO on the basis of report of investigation wing wherein modus operandi of unscrupulous entry providers have been explained and taking note of the surrounding circumstances, human conduct was of the view that preponderance ... TTML and it is governed by market forces. The Ld AR submitted that the AO has merely relied upon the investigation report of the Investigation wing of Kolkata and has not carried out independent enquiry to support his conclusion that the LTCG claim of the asssessee is bogus. 8. Further

Mr Bhavesh Kantilal Kubadia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-21(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mr. Bhavesh Kantilal बिधम/ Ito, Ward-21(1)(2) Kubadia Room No. 104, 1St Floor, Vs. 7, 2Nd Floor, Neminath Piramal Chamber, Building, S. K. Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai- (Dadar (W), Mumbai- 400012. 400028. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agrpk2377D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 24.04.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.77,02,597 U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding The Addition Of Rs.2,31,038/- As Commission (3% Of Ltcg) For Arranging Bogus Ltcg U/S 69 Of The Act.

sale of LTCG of M/s TTML, Prakash Khemani V ITO. However, the AO rejected the plea of assessee on the basis of report of investigation wing wherein modus operandi of unscrupulous entry providers have been explained in detail. So, according to AO, surrounding circumstances, human conduct and preponderance of probability ... TTML and it is governed by market forces. The Ld AR submitted that the AO has merely relied upon the investigation report of the Investigation wing of Kolkata and some irrelevant statements and general assertions and has not any carried out any independent enquiry to support his contention that

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.95/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 09.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.3,20,97,772/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

Devi Agarwal and Tribunal order in GTC Industries V ACIT. However, the AO rejected the plea of assessee on the basis of report of investigation wing wherein modus operandi of unscrupulous entry providers have been explained in detail. So, according to AO, surrounding circumstances, human conduct ... company can fetch such high price unless it was pre-fixed by unscrupulous entry providers as revealed by the investigation report of the Investigation Wing of Department. Therefore, he does not want us to interfere with the action of the Ld. CIT(A) and prayed for dismissing the appeal

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.94/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 07.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.73,11,760/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

Devi Agarwal and Tribunal order in GTC Industries V ACIT. However, the AO rejected the plea of assessee on the basis of report of investigation wing wherein modus operandi of unscrupulous entry providers have been explained in detail. So, according to AO, surrounding circumstances, human conduct and preponderance of probability ... company can fetch such high price unless it was pre-fixed by unscrupulous entry providers as revealed by the investigation report of the Investigation Wing of Department. Therefore, he does not want us to interfere with the action of the Ld. CIT(A) and prayed for dismissing the appeal

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.93/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.3,17,12,750/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

Devi Agarwal and Tribunal order in GTC Industries V ACIT. However, the AO rejected the plea of assessee on the basis of report of investigation wing wherein modus operandi of 6 A.Y. 2011-12 Sheetal Rupesh Savla unscrupulous entry providers have been explained in detail. So, according to AO, surrounding ... unless it was pre-fixed by unscrupulous entry providers as revealed by the investigation 10 A.Y. 2011-12 Sheetal Rupesh Savla report of the Investigation Wing of Department. Therefore, he does not want us to interfere with the action of the Ld. CIT(A) and prayed for dismissing the appeal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Nilesh Shantilal Tank (E-Filing), Borivali (W)

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeals filed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Parmar who had undertaken to stay away from the assessee but had continued to forge bogus records and was hand in glove with the investigation wing to conduct search and survey on the assessee company and its directors. The assessee vehemently opposed to the reliance on (A.Ys

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Nilesh Shantilal Tank (E-Filing), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeals filed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Parmar who had undertaken to stay away from the assessee but had continued to forge bogus records and was hand in glove with the investigation wing to conduct search and survey on the assessee company and its directors. The assessee vehemently opposed to the reliance on (A.Ys

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Akshar Shanti Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeals filed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Parmar who had undertaken to stay away from the assessee but had continued to forge bogus records and was hand in glove with the investigation wing to conduct search and survey on the assessee company and its directors. The assessee vehemently opposed to the reliance on (A.Ys

M/S. Akshar Shanti Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeals filed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Parmar who had undertaken to stay away from the assessee but had continued to forge bogus records and was hand in glove with the investigation wing to conduct search and survey on the assessee company and its directors. The assessee vehemently opposed to the reliance on (A.Ys

Mr. Nilesh Shantilal Tank, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeals filed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Parmar who had undertaken to stay away from the assessee but had continued to forge bogus records and was hand in glove with the investigation wing to conduct search and survey on the assessee company and its directors. The assessee vehemently opposed to the reliance on (A.Ys

ACIT, Circle- 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Avenue Real Estate Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

perusal of the relevant finding given in the impugned order, we find that there was an information received from the Investigation Wing that assessee company had made purchases from eight parties for sums aggregating to Rs.4,75,20,254/- which were made on account of alleged purchase bills which were