“investigation wing”

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind to the alleged information received by him from the Investigation Wing and has merely issued a reopening notice on the basis of such information, which is verbatim reproduced in the reasons recorded. This is clearly ... appellant to cross examine these third parties. In any event, Shri Kiritkumar Dharsibhai Suba has retracted the statements dated 11.01.2018 and 12.01.2018 obtained by Investigation Wing through affidavit dated 03.04.2018. 10. On the facts and the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind to the alleged information received by him from the Investigation Wing and has merely issued a reopening notice on the basis of such information, which is verbatim reproduced in the reasons recorded. This is clearly ... appellant to cross examine these third parties. In any event, Shri Kiritkumar Dharsibhai Suba has retracted the statements dated 11.01.2018 and 12.01.2018 obtained by Investigation Wing through affidavit dated 03.04.2018. 10. On the facts and the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind to the alleged information received by him from the Investigation Wing and has merely issued a reopening notice on the basis of such information, which is verbatim reproduced in the reasons recorded. This is clearly ... appellant to cross examine these third parties. In any event, Shri Kiritkumar Dharsibhai Suba has retracted the statements dated 11.01.2018 and 12.01.2018 obtained by Investigation Wing through affidavit dated 03.04.2018. 10. On the facts and the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred

Karishma Ajay Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalekarishma Ajay Agarwal Vs. Ito, Ward – 21(2)(1) 218A/219, Shah Nahar Aayakar Bhavan, Industrial Estate, Bk M.K.Road, Kher Marg, Mumbai-400020 Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No. : Agapa3857D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala.Ar Respondent By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singhanand.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 02.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

through a SEBI registered broker. The AO has doubted the allotment of shares on the preferential issue at higher price and based on the investigation wing Kolkata report, trading of shares on stock exchange and Karishma Ajay Agarwal, Mumbai. statement recorded in search operations on 16.12.16 dealt at Para ... transactions, the allotment of shares, payment of premium on allotment of shares, the price trend on stock exchange, the report of the kolkata investigation wing and the statement of persons and has doubted the earning of Long Term Capital Gains. The A.O observed that there is a no correlation

Nanda Sumermal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (2) (4), Mumbai

that in preceding assessment year loan transaction with MGPL were accepted as genuine is not relevant as by that time the report of the Investigation Wing was not available with the Assessing Officer wherein it was clearly stated that MGPL had taken accommodation entries. The Ld. Departmental Representative also placed ... genuine transaction. For the assessment year before us, there was no change in the facts and circumstances except for the report of the Investigation Wing having been received by the Assessing Officer. Even this report from the Investigation Wing pertained to modus operandi of Gautam Jain Group unearthed after search

Maa Jagdambe Tradelinks Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asstt Comm of Income Tax Circle -12(3) (2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Maa Jagdambe Tradelinks Ltd. Asst. Cit, Circle-12(3)(2) Shop No. 7, Ground Floor, Mumbai A-Wing, Navkar Building, Vs. Yashwant Gaurav Complex, Nalasopara (W), Mumbai -400 101

Vipul Vidur Bhatt and his other related entities, the assessee’s case was reopened u/s. 148 of the Act for the reason that the Investigation Wing had received information that the assessee company has taken bogus accommodation entries from the entities operated by Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt. 4. The Assessing ... bogus purchase. 5. The assessee has challenged in ground no. 1, the reopening of the assessment on the basis of the information from the Investigation Wing and that the A.O. has issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act only on the basis of the borrowed satisfaction and that