“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

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

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

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

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

Pioneer Investcorp Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 934/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 263

submitted that the AO did not disallow the consultancy charges 7 M/s. Pioneer Investcorp Limited paid to Shri Deepak Kochhar, even though the Investigation wing has expressed opinion that it was only accommodation entry. Accordingly, he submitted that the revision orders passed by Ld PCIT should be confirmed

Pioneer Investcorp Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 933/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 263

M/S Direct Logistic India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals)-16, Mumbai

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

ITA 805/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Direct Logistics India Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 9(3)(3) 2102 B-Wing, Oberoi Park View Room No. 471 Thakur Village, Kandivali (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400101 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacd8774D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Sawana & Shri Dinesh Kukreja Department By : Smt Mahita Nair

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sawana &For Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Direct Logistics India Pvt. Ltd., processed u/s. 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). The Assessing Officer received information from Investigation Wing that assessee has taken various accommodation entries under the garb of share application money from benami concerns operated by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain

Dy CIT Cent. Cir.-8(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Raj Wespower P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 1884/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-Cc-8(3), M/S Jsw Energy (Barmer) Room No. 656, 6Th Floor, Limited, (Formerly Known Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. As M/S Raj Westpower Pvt. M.K. Road, Ltd.), Jindal Mansion, 5A, Mumbai-400020. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacr 8812 L Appellant Respondent : Revenue By Mr. T. Shankar, Cit-Dr & Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Rakesh Joshi, Ar : Date Of Hearing 18/10/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Revenue by Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR &

recorded during survey action to the statement dated 22/12/2009 recorded during survey action to the statement dated 22/12/2009 recorded during survey action by the investigation wing of y the investigation wing of Income-tax department Mumbai tax department Mumbai, on one of the subcontractor of SHEL namely of the subcontractor

Asst CIT 6 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. India Steel Works Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7057/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Ujjwal Chavhan, DR

Section 143(3)

DDIT(Inv)/Unit-2(1)/GS 2(1)/GS-Inf/2015-16 dtd. 18.03.2016. In light of 16 dtd. 18.03.2016. In light of this information received from the investigation wing of the income this information received from the investigation wing of the income this information received from the investigation wing of the income

M/S. Srinivas Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre, Mangalroe vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

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

ITA 533/BANG/2022[N/A]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: N.A.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 269S

under consideration in this order." 2.8 The learned PCIT, Central Circle, Bangalore held that the following violations were noticed by the Investigation Wing during the course of search. The relevant discussion in the impugned order is as under: "9. Registration of a trust can be cancelled by the Commissioner when ... registration was granted vide order dated 25-04-2013. The following violations are noticed during the course of search proceedings conducted by the investigation wing namely; i) During the course of search operations carried out on 17- 02-2021 in the case of the trust and the Trustees, cash

Pride Paradise and Development Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office -WD 7(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.50/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Pride Paradise & बिधम/ Ito, Ward-7(3)(1) Room No. 126J, 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 601, Orbit Plaza, New Aayakar Bhavan, Marine Prabhadevi Road, Lines, Mumbai-400020. Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400025. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp3042N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By: Shri Mahender Ahuja सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/12/2022 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 17.11.2021 For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Challenged The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao By Which The Ao Has Made An Addition Of Rs.6,00,000/-. 3. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay. 2007-08 On 31.10.2007 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,820/-. Thereafter, The Return Of Income Was Scrutized U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Vide Order Dated 09.12.2009 Accepting The Return Of Income. Later On, The Ao Received An Information From Dgit (Inv.), Mumbai Pursuant To A Search Carried

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Mahender Ahuja

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

basis of statement of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain that his Group of concerns were engaged in providing accommodation entry; and based on that investigation wing prepared an Investigation Report, from which it revealed that the assessee is a beneficiary of obtaining accommodation entries to the tune of Rs.6

Meridian Flour Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-Circle 15(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2615/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2615, 2618, 2617 & 2616/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya/For Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Ld. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

statement of Shri Narendra Kumar 4 I.T.A. No. 2615, 2618, 2617 & 2616/Mum/2022 Meridian Flour Mills Ltd. Narayanlal Agarwal and also the observation of Investigation Wing and treated the purchases of Rs. 4,81,566 as bogus and treated the same to be the income of the assessee ... held to be non genuine. 14. Heavy reliance has been placed by the AO and Ld. CIT(A) that during the course of Investigation Wing, Shri Narendra Kumar Narayanlal Agarwal has admitted that he is providing 10 I.T.A. No. 2615, 2618, 2617 & 2616/Mum/2022 Meridian Flour Mills Ltd. accommodation entries

ITO-6(1)(1), Mum vs. Shm Products P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2098/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dhiren ShroffFor Respondent: Shri Mahender Ahuja

Section 147

this Tribunal held as under:- 5. I heard the parties and perused the record. The question as to whether the information received from investigation wing of income tax department could be considered as “external source” within the meaning of clause (e) referred above, was examined ... also, the 8 A.Y. 2009-10 SHM Products Pvt. Ltd. addition has been made by the AO on the basis of information received from investigation wing, meaning thereby, it cannot be said that the facts of the present case would be covered by the exception mentioned in clause

The Byke Hospitality Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm of Income Tax, Circle -2(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1954/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Byke Hospitality Ltd., National Faceless Appeal 156-158 Chakravarty Ashok Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Complex, Mumbai, Sahar P & T Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(2)(1), Colony S.O., Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400099. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaack 2113 R Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Ms. Shivangi Chopara, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ashish Heliwal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Ms. Shivangi Chopara, AR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 274

Goldmoon Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. Goldmoon Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. the Assessing Officer observed the Assessing Officer observed as under: “5.2 Information was received from the Investigation Wing of 5.2 Information was received from the Investigation Wing of 5.2 Information was received from the Investigation Wing of the Department that a Search ... finding asseessee did not make any effort to convert the finding asseessee did not make any effort to convert the finding recorded by the Investigation Wing. In its submissions, the recorded by the Investigation Wing. In its submissions, the recorded by the Investigation Wing. In its submissions, the assessee alleged

Sunshine Merchants P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1539/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sunshine Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Cc-4(1), 601, Sunshine Plaza, Niagaum Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Cross Road, Dadar East, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400014. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aagca 1771 R Appellant Respondent : Assessee By None : Revenue By Mr. Ashish Heliwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by None

Section 143(3)

/147 of the Act on the basis 143(3)/147 of the Act on the basis of a borrowed satisfaction from the investigation wing of a borrowed satisfaction from the investigation wing of a borrowed satisfaction from the investigation wing and merely repeating the facts recorded by the and merely ... repeating the facts recorded by the and merely repeating the facts recorded by the investigation wing in its reference without establishing investigation wing in its reference without establishing investigation wing in its reference without establishing any direct link between the tangible material and any direct link between the tangible material

Chirag Gems, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(5)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 26/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.26/Srt/2022 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Chirag Gems Income Tax Officer, C-602, Diamond World, Mini Ward-3(3)(5), Surat, Aaykar Vs Bazar Varachha Road, Surat- Bhawan, Majura Gate, Opp New 395006 Civil Hospital, Surat Pan No: Aacfc 1075 H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)

declared by assessee in its return of income. 5 Chirag Gems 6. On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that Investigation Wing of Department has made full-fledged investigation and said investigation during the search action on Shri Bhanwarlal Jain Group and company on 03.10./2014 ... purchase, which was filed by the assessee alongiwth his 6 Chirag Gems reply dated 12/11/2019. The Assessing Officer solely relied upon the report of Investigation Wing. The NFAC/ld CIT(A) also upheld the action of Assessing Officer by simply taking view that assessee has shown purchase from the concern

DCIT, Circle1(1), Cuttack vs. M/S. Satyam Casting (P) Limited, Gopalpur

ITA 28/CTK/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack28 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Vs M/S. Satyam Casting Pvt M/S. Satyam Casting Pvt Aayakar Aayakar Bhavan, Bhavan, Shelter Shelter Ltd., At./Po: Plot No.A Ltd., At./Po: Plot No.A-2, Square, Cuttack Square, Cuttack Choudwar, Industrial Estate, Choudwar, Industrial Estate, Gopalpur, Cuttack Gopalpur, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aafcs 1536 H (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.No.19/Ctk/2021 (In Ita No.28/Ctk/2021): A.Y. 2016 No.28/Ctk/2021): A.Y. 2016-17 M/S. Satyam Casting Pvt M/S. Satyam Casting Pvt Vs Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Ltd., At./Po: Plot No.A Ltd., At./Po: Plot No.A-2, Aayakar Aayakar Bhavan, Bhavan, Shelter Shelter Choudwar, Industrial Estate, Choudwar, Industrial Estate, Square, Cuttack Square, Cuttack Gopalpur, Cuttack Gopalpur, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aafcs 1536 H (Cross Objector) Cross Objector) .. ( Appellant) Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT

Section 133(6)

relied upon the statement recorded from one of the entry operator of M/s. Geometry Vanijya (P) Ltd., namely Shri Pankaj Agarwal recorded by the Investigation Wing on 1.9.2011 to submit that P a g e 4 | 18 C.O.No.19/CTK./2021 Assessment year: 2016-17 M/s. Geometry Vanijya

DCIT, CC - 2(4), Mumbai vs. Mishal Nickunj Shah Shri. L/H. of Late Nickunj Gunvantrai Shah, Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2312/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg

Section 10(38)Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

giving accommodation entries to various parties and assessee is one of the beneficiary. The search was initiated based on the report of the investigation wing dated 24.10.2017 which is reproduced in the Assessment Order itself. He submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has decided the issue of no incriminating material in favour ... assessee, he submitted that the search was initiated only on the basis of the DDIT (Investigation), Wing report and it is established that the assessee has taken accommodation entries. Therefore, it establishes that the addition was made by establishing that the assessee is one of the beneficiary. Therefore, this clearly

DCIT, CC - 2(4), Mumbai vs. Mishal Nickunj Shah Shri. L/H. of Late Nickunj Gunvantrai Shah, Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2311/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg

Section 10(38)Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

M/S. Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax Officer, Mumbai-1

In the result, the appeal filed

ITA 871/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Pr. Cit-1, Ltd, Room No. 330, 3Rd Floor, 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37- Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 40, Subhash Road, Vile Parle Karve Road, (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aadcg 5620 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rakesh Joshi Revenue By : Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/12/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

under section 143(1) of the section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, on receipt of information . Subsequently, on receipt of information from the investigation wing, Mumbai that the assessee was from the investigation wing, Mumbai that the assessee was from the investigation wing, Mumbai that the assessee was indulged

Om Shree International Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-10(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1683/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleom Shree International Vs. Acit, Circle – 10(3)(1) Pvt Ltd., Room No. 212, 2Nd 702, 7Th Floor, Orion Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Business Part, Nehru Mk Road, Mumbai – Road, Santacruz (E) 400020. Mumbai – 400055. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabco4798B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr. M Subramanian.Ar Respondent By : Mr. B. Bagchi.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac) / Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr. M Subramanian.ARFor Respondent: Mr. B. Bagchi.DR

Section 115JSection 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

assessee company in the F.Y 2011-12, were the assessee has transferred funds of Rs. 29,39,900/- to one M/s Gouri Traders. The investigation wing found that the M/s Gouri Traders does not exists and is engaged in providing the accommodation entries and the assessee

ACIT -1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Adhiraj Construction Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1410/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

adopted for providing 3 M/s. Adhiraj Constructions Pvt. Ltd. accommodation entries was explained. The Assessing Officer also referred to the note given by the Investigation Wing, wherein it was opined that the builders/person dealing in real estate, who wants to plough back their undisclosed cash in its business, approach these ... case of Pravir Polymers P Ltd also, the addition was made on the basis of information received from 9 M/s. Adhiraj Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Investigation wing of the department and the same was confirmed by the Tribunal. 16. We heard rival contentions and perused the record. In the instant case

M/S Golden Seams Textiles P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-5, Mumbai

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

ITA 2019/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Golden Seams Textiles Pvt. Dcit, Central Circle-5, Ltd., Old Cgo Bldg., Room No. 14, Peninsula Centre, Dr. S.S. Vs. 901, Annexe, 9Th Floor, M.K. Rao Road, Parel, Road, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccg 1114 E Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Dharan Gandhi/Vipul J. Revenue By : Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Dharan Gandhi/Vipul J

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153C

ssment completed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer referred to the finding of the Investigation Wing Assessing Officer referred to the finding of the Investigation Wing Assessing Officer referred to the finding of the Investigation Wing during survey proceedings dated 31.07.2013 and informed the proceedings

Saroj Devi Sand, Silchar vs. Incoem Tax Officer, Ward-3, Silchar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

ITA 51/GTY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati23 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

providing complete details before calling for objections from the assessee. 7. That the Learned Assessing Officer erred in relying on the findings of the Investigation Wing without furnishing any material relating to the same to the assessee before passing the assessment order. 8. That the authorities erred in relying ... based his decision of treating the impugned transaction of sale of shares as bogus transaction by relying on the report of Investigation Wing of the Department wherein the Investigation Wing of the Department had studied the modus operandi of rigging the prices of penny stocks and generation of capital gain