“investigation wing”

R Suresh & Co, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 19(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Suresh & Co. such documents could be brought on records. Ld. AO made the addition solely based on information received from the Investigation wing. It is also argued that even 133(6) notices are also responded by the respective suppliers, copies of which are furnished by the assessee vide its reply

Shri Vipul Bansal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground on merits raised by\nthe assessee on this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

client codes so as to shift profits\nto selected clients and corresponding losses to others.\n5. On the basis of data received from the Investigation Wing\nand analysis of broker-wise and client-wise information, the\nAssessing Officer noted that the assessee's PAN appeared as the\nmodified client code ... during\nthe original assessment proceedings completed under section\n143(3). According to the learned AR, the reasons merely refer to\ninformation received from the Investigation Wing regarding\nalleged client code modification and do not attribute any omission\nor suppression of facts to the assessee. The learned AR further\npointed

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. R Mehta & Co, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

appreciated the fact action of the AO was based on information/report received from the DGIT( Investigation Wing), Mumbai that Rajendra Jain Group and Dharmichand Group, all are hawala truders who were indulged in the practice of providing accommodation entries of issuing bogus Sales/Purchase bill without supplying any goods ... parties were involved it was held: 6. We noticed that the Ld.CIT(A) has simply placed reliance on the report given by the Investigation Wing. While confirming the addition, the Ld.CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has also not furnished the detailed computation in respect of how these transactions

Shri Sanjay Haresh Mulchandani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee succeeds in the present appeal

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Sanjay Haresh The Income Tax Officer, Mulchandani Ward, 19 (3) (1), 4-C Ajanta Apartments, M L Vs. Piramal Chamber, Dhanukar Marg, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400013. Mumbai – 40026 Pan – Aadpm 3393 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Harsh Kapadia & Nitin Khinchi, Ld. Ars Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Jumale, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Along With His Uncle Had Purchased A Flat In Iscon Platinum, Ahmedabad On A Consideration Of Rs. 59,30,000/- Through Cheques. Subsequently, Search Under Section 132 Of The Act Was Conducted By The Investigation Wing, In The Case Of Jp Iscon

Platinum, Ahmedabad on a consideration of Rs. 59,30,000/- through cheques. Subsequently, search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted by the Investigation Wing, in the case of JP ISCON 2 Shri Sanjay Haresh Mulchandani Group and related Assessee, wherein certain incriminating documents /evidences were seized in respect

Rajesh M Jain (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

revenue the delay in filing of appeal for 72 days has been condoned. 4. Briefly stated, the assessee HUF, as per information received from investigation wing, was indulged in trading of certain penny stock scrips, namely M/s. Mahavir Advance Remedies Limited in Calcutta stock exchange. The assessee disclosed exempt long

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Das Offshore Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine

n5.13 With regard the reliance of the Assessing Officer on the findings of survey conducted u/s 133A of the Act by the Investigation Wing, it is seen that nothing per se has been discussed in the impugned assessment order. The observations recorded in order u/s 148A ... them on assurance of booking bogus LTCG/loss in favour of the beneficiaries. It is fact and evidenced from the detailed enquiry conducted by the Investigation Wing that they have not only arranged the sale of shares but also arranged for sales of shares through their entities and by paying certain

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Avin Rajendrakumar Agrawal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

fulcrum of the Assessing Officer’s action rests entirely upon information received from the 5 ITA No.84/Mum/2024 and CO No.43/Mum/2024 Avin Rajendrakumar Agrawal Investigation Wing, coupled with a generalized analysis of price movement of the scrip of M/s. Midland Polymers Limited, without carrying out any independent verification or enquiry