← All Phrases

“investigation wing”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 14712,584 judgments

The decision most relied on for investigation wing is PCIT v. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. (396 ITR 5), cited in 272 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on investigation wing

PCIT v. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd.
396 ITR 5 · 2017 · High Court
272
citing judgments

Reassessment based solely on information from the Investigation Wing, without the Assessing Officer conducting further inquiry or demonstrating an independent application of mind, is unjustified and invalid.

109 TTJ 700 (Del) SMC Share Brokers Ltd. v. DCIT
293 ITR 43 · 2007 · High Court
264
citing judgments

Where an assessment order is merely a copy-paste of observations from an investigation wing's appraisal report without independent verification, it is not a valid basis for making additions to income.

Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO
329 ITR 110 · 2010 · High Court
217
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid if the Assessing Officer records satisfaction based on borrowed satisfaction or information without independently applying their mind and forming their own 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment. The AO must arrive at an independent conclusion, not merely act on a report from an investigation wing without due diligence.

ITO, 19(3) (4) Mumbai v. Shamim M Bharwani
69 Taxmann.com 65 · 2016 · Reported
142
citing judgments

Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) from penny stock transactions are liable to be treated as bogus and added back under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, especially when evidence suggests the involvement of entry operators providing accommodation entries.

1. Harikishan S. Virmani v. DCIT
394 ITR 146 · 2017 · High Court
97
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under section 147 cannot be initiated by the Assessing Officer based on borrowed satisfaction, vague information from the Investigation Wing, or incorrect jurisdictional facts without independent application of mind. Reopening beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, especially where an original assessment was completed under section 143(3), requires specific conditions relating to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts.

ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur
224 ITR 362 · 1997 · Supreme Court
90
citing judgments

Information received from the investigation wing constitutes valid 'reason to believe' for initiating reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148, provided the Assessing Officer applies their mind to the material and does not act mechanically. Prompt issuance of a notice based on such information does not automatically imply a lack of due diligence or borrowed satisfaction.

AGR Investment v. Additional Commissioner
197 Taxmann 177 · 2011 · High Court
81
citing judgments

A reassessment under Section 147/148 is valid if initiated based on specific, non-vague information, even from an investigation wing, provided the Assessing Officer applies independent mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment.

56 (Guj.) (para 6) v. Aaspas Multimedia Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
83 Taxmann.com 82 · 2017 · High Court
78
citing judgments

Information received from the Investigation Wing, identifying the assessee as a beneficiary of accommodation entries through share application from a third party, constitutes valid tangible material and 'reasons to believe' for initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.

Judgments citing investigation wing

ACIT, CC- 19, New Delhi vs. Ambika International, New Delhi

ITA 5037/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 80

upon which search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) was conducted by the Investigation Wing on 20.01.2014. The assessees/appellants’ premises were also covered u/s 132(1) of the Act. As the cases were centralized, notice u/s 153A

ACIT, CC- 19, New Delhi vs. Ambika International, New Delhi

ITA 5036/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 80

upon which search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) was conducted by the Investigation Wing on 20.01.2014. The assessees/appellants’ premises were also covered u/s 132(1) of the Act. As the cases were centralized, notice u/s 153A

The ACIT Central-2, Indore vs. M/S Shubham Fininvest India P Ltd, Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for A

ITA 170/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 68

Income Tax Act could not be said to have been discharged.” 2. Ld. DR has submitted that the AO received information from investigation wing Mumbai as a result of search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act conducted in case of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain on 01.10.2013 wherein ... entries to various companies and assessee is one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries. After analyzing the documents seized from Shri Praveen Jain the investigation wing Mumbai found that several transactions were made between the assesse company and various companies operated by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain. He has referred

The ACIT Central-2, Indore vs. M/S Shubham Fininvest India P Ltd, Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for A

ITA 169/IND/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 68

Income Tax Act could not be said to have been discharged.” 2. Ld. DR has submitted that the AO received information from investigation wing Mumbai as a result of search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act conducted in case of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain on 01.10.2013 wherein ... entries to various companies and assessee is one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries. After analyzing the documents seized from Shri Praveen Jain the investigation wing Mumbai found that several transactions were made between the assesse company and various companies operated by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain. He has referred

The ACIT, 5(1), Indore vs. M/S. Swastik Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Indore

ITA 229/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit 5(1) M/S Swastic Coal Corporation Indore Pvt. Ltd. 21/3 Swastik House, Ratlam Vs. Kothi, Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan:Aabcj3196N Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Vijay Bansal & Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ars Date Of Hearing 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2023

Section 14ASection 68

parties and genuineness of the transactions. The AO also issued commission u/s 131(1)(d) to Kolkata and Mumbai office of the Investigation Wing of the department for conducting the inquiry about the share applicants company. The AO received report from Mumbai Investigation Wing wherein very serious and incriminating findings ... companies are given and entire transactions which are being claimed as receipt of share capital and premium are questioned by the report of the investigation wing in response to the commission issued u/s 131(1)(d) of the Act. Further the AO also verified the financial details of share applicant

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat vs. Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 297/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.297/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, Income-Tax, Circle-2, Surat, Vs. K-801, River View Heights, Room No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pedar Road, Mota Varachha, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Surat-394101 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpb 0820 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin K Parekh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

note that ld Counsel also contended that cross-examination of Shri Manoj C. Patel and Shri Jayantibhai Babariya whose statements were recorded by the Investigation Wing and also by the Assessing Officer, was requested from the Assessing Officer. However, the same has been denied by the Assessing Officer stating that

Kailash Chand Yadav, 100, Kalu Baba Ki Dhani, Sheoshinghpur, Akoda, Phulera-303338 vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 82/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar(Adv.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

Delhi) followed). (iv) ACIT vs. Devesh Kumar (ITAT Delhi)dt. 31.10.2014 Reopening solely on the basis of information received from the investigation wing & without independent application of mind is void. (v) Unique Metal Industries vs Income Tax Officer (ITAT Delhi) dated 28.10.2015 Reopening solely on the basis of information received

M/S the Madras Pharmaceuticals, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Incometax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 23/CHNY/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 23/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The Madras The Assistant Commissioner Of Pharmaceuticals, V. Income Tax, No. 15, Sri Gopalakrishna Road, Central Circle -1(1), T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aaaft-2536-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. J. Prabhakar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Mohan Reddy, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2023

For Appellant: Shri. J. Prabhakar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69C

where the Assessing Officer categorically admitted that there is no details available with regard to stock difference worked out by the Investigation Wing and further he has written a letter to the Investigation Wing to clarify the basis for adopting stock difference of Rs. :-19-: ITA. No: 23/Chny/21 ... made additions towards difference in stock in trade/purchases as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act, only on the basis of observation of the Investigation Wing in the appraisal report without any attempt to verify the quantification of stock difference worked out during the course of search. We further noted

Vrushali Sanjay Shinde, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 1, Thane

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

ITA 198/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blevrushali Sanjay Shinde V. Dcit, Central Circle-1 282, Boundary Road B-101, Marigold, Prestige Residency G.B. Road, Kavesar, Thane- 400607 Civil Line, Meerut - 250001 Pan: Ajnps5211K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Sankalp Malik Department Represented By : Shri Shanti Subramanian

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153C

without application of mind as neither there was an examination of the seized documents and the relevance of various observations made by the Investigation Wing in appraisal report. Thus, we hold the approval under section 153D have been granted without application of mind and is invalid, bad in 25 Vrushali ... assessee is totally incorrect. 6. Further the entire assessment is based on the appraisal report and the seized material as forwarded by the Investigation wing, the special audit report and the replies filed by the assessee during the course of assessment. Moreover, as mentioned in Para 4 of the affidavit

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Raipur vs. Mesers Aryan Builders and Developers Private Limited, Raipur

In the result, both appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee stand dismissed in terms of our observations

ITA 201/RPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Kumar Singhania, CA, &For Respondent: Shri S.K.Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 250(4)Section 68

regularly fled returns of income. No material was brought on record by the A.O independently of the information received, if any, from the investigation wing of the Income Tax Department to show that the monies represented the appellant’s undisclosed income. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Lovely

DCIT, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Shri Mahendra Champaklal Mehta, Surat

In the result, IT(SS)A No

ITA 31/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 06/Srt /2021 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 254(1)

Project. Manojbhai is a broker and I shall give his details within two details (days). Aagam v. Vadecha further in the statement before the Investigation Wing on 08/12/2015 reiterated that abbreviation ‘M.C.’ is a broker namely Manojbhai, the assessee also filed copy of said statement. The assessee stated that ... abbreviation “M.C.” refers to a broker Manojbhai and not the assessee. Further Shri Agam v. Vadecha while filing written submission dated 08/12/2015 before the Investigation Wing reported that M.C. is a broker whose name is Manojbhai with whom they carried out resale deal transaction. On the aforesaid basis

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jalandhar vs. M/S Supertech Forgings Pvt Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/101/2022HC Punjab & Haryana05 Sept 2023

Bench: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

case was reopened u/s 147 on 30.03.2017 on the basis of the information received by the AO from the investigation wing in the form of statement recorded in the case of Sh. Madan Lal Pahuja. In the reasons recorded, the AO had mentioned that the purchases made from Madan ... bogus purchases were reflected by the statements of Sh. Madan Lal Pahuja and Jatinder Kumar before the Investigating Wing, Ludhiana. The respondent-assessee filed objections to the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer, being not satisfied with the assessee reply, disallowed the entire purchases amounting

Amaravati, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1486/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Sri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr. A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

unsustainable in law. 2. The Ld.CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings and recording of reasons emanated from the report of the Investigation wing of the Income Tax Department. Therefore, erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer ('AO') in reopening assessment on borrowed satisfaction without independent

Amaravati, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1485/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Sri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr. A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

unsustainable in law. 2. The Ld.CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings and recording of reasons emanated from the report of the Investigation wing of the Income Tax Department. Therefore, erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer ('AO') in reopening assessment on borrowed satisfaction without independent

Amaravati, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1484/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Sri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr. A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

unsustainable in law. 2. The Ld.CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings and recording of reasons emanated from the report of the Investigation wing of the Income Tax Department. Therefore, erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer ('AO') in reopening assessment on borrowed satisfaction without independent

Amaravati, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1483/HYD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Sri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr. A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

unsustainable in law. 2. The Ld.CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings and recording of reasons emanated from the report of the Investigation wing of the Income Tax Department. Therefore, erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer ('AO') in reopening assessment on borrowed satisfaction without independent

Jagdish Manilal Desai, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 462/SRT/2023[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Surat05 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.462/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Hearing) Jagdish Manilal Desai (Huf), Vs. The Ito, Prop. Hemal Gems, 104, 3Rd Ward – 1(3)(2), Floor, Keshav Jyot Apartment, Surat Lal Bunglow, Athwalines, Surat – 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabhj3074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

various documentary evidences furnished by assessee. The ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue supported the order of AO. The ld. CIT-DR submits that Investigation Wing, Mumbai made a search on Bhanwarlal Jain Group. During the search and after search, the Investigation Wing made a thorough investigation and concluded that ... made any comment on the documentary evidence furnished by assessee. The AO solely relied upon the statement of third party and the report of Investigation Wing. The report of wing and the statement of Bhanwarlal Jain were not provided to the assessee. The AO has not disputed the sales

Rajendra Babulal Malu, HUF, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Ichalkaranji

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1868/PUN/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1867/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Archana Rajendra Malu, Vs. Ito, Ward-4, 237, Manish Trading Ichalkaranji. Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. Pan : Abepm4622K Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1868/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rajendra Babulal Malu, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Huf, Ichalkaranji. 237, Manish Trading Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. Pan : Aachr7709H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolhapur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 03.10.2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.1867/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

sake of brevity, the modus operandi is not discussed herein. The appellant was also provided the copy of statements recorded by the Investigation Wing of the Department, Calcutta from Shri Soumen Sen, who is an Accountant of D.B. & Co. and several other entities alleged to be involved in providing accommodation ... entries or long term capital gains from Calcutta Entry Provider, namely, Shri Anuj Agarwal, who is an operator of Greencrest Financial Services Limited. The Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, Calcutta had conducted search and seizure operations on the said entry provider and recorded the statement, wherein

Archana Rajendra Malu, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 4, Ichalkaranji

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1867/PUN/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1867/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Archana Rajendra Malu, Vs. Ito, Ward-4, 237, Manish Trading Ichalkaranji. Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. Pan : Abepm4622K Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1868/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rajendra Babulal Malu, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Huf, Ichalkaranji. 237, Manish Trading Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. Pan : Aachr7709H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolhapur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 03.10.2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.1867/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

sake of brevity, the modus operandi is not discussed herein. The appellant was also provided the copy of statements recorded by the Investigation Wing of the Department, Calcutta from Shri Soumen Sen, who is an Accountant of D.B. & Co. and several other entities alleged to be involved in providing accommodation ... entries or long term capital gains from Calcutta Entry Provider, namely, Shri Anuj Agarwal, who is an operator of Greencrest Financial Services Limited. The Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, Calcutta had conducted search and seizure operations on the said entry provider and recorded the statement, wherein

ACIT, Circle- 14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Akshay Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2923/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Circle – 14(1)(1) Vs. M/S.Akshayinfrastructure Room No. 432, Pvt Ltd.102, 4Th Floor, Siddhivinayak Chsl, Aayakar Bhavan, Tilak Nagar, M.K. Road, Chembur, Mumbai- 400020. Mumbai-400089 Pan/Gir No. : Aahca2331A Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Ajaysingh&Yogeshjoijode.Ar Revenue By : Mr.Manoj Kumar.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 04.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi /Cit(A) Mumbai Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal. 1."On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made By The A.O. Of Rs2,03,00,000/- On Account Of Disallowance U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act Merely Relying On The Submissions Made By The A.R. Of The Assessee & On The Basis Of

For Appellant: Mr.AjaySingh&YogeshJoijode.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Manoj Kumar.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Mumbai, Surat and Kolkata and has referred the details of searches U/s 132 and surveys U/S 133A conducted by the Income Tax Dept Investigation Wing of Mumbai and SuratThe A.O has reproduced the details of Companies operated by Sirish C Shah, Ritesh Buradand Pravin Kr. Jain and has reproduced their ... Management services Pvt Ltd at a premium and due to search u/sec132 of the Act on the group, the statements were recorded by the investigation wing that they are only providing accommodation entries. The A.O based on the statements recorded in the course of the search under