investigation wing — 12,584 case laws

ACIT, CC-4, Jaipur vs. Shri Mukut Behari Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 152/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

under so as to understand the issue on hand; “09 Main issues involved: Searches have been conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Department at various places throughout the country in the past. During the searches & as per the information made public by the SEBI, it is discovered that various ... account of unsecured loans and partners' capital under section 68 being unexplained cash credit solely on the basis of the information received from Investigation Wing Kolkata. It is pertinent to note that the said information was available with the AO prior to the search conducted under section

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 5 Kolkata vs. Shyam Kumar and Sons HUF

ITAT/162/2022HC Calcutta26 Sept 2022

Bench: :

Section 260A

Appellate Tribunal’s order was erroneous in law and in fact when it failed to give credence to investiations made by the assessing officer. Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department as well as SEBI on astronomical rise in prices of companies which have no 3 net worth and no financial

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs. Panchmukhi Management Services Pvt. Ltd

Appeal is allowed and the

ITA/321/2022HC Delhi26 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 140(1)(iii)Section 151

till March 31, 2021 and subsequently further fund has been deposited under protest as and when demanded. 2) In December 21, 2021 the Investigation Wing of Department of Income Tax has conducted Search and Seizure operations on the company and its associates, including its directors. As a part

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 5, Kolkata vs. Amit Kumar Jain

ITAT/113/2022HC Calcutta26 Sept 2022

Bench: :

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 68Section 69C

Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law when the Learned Tribunal failed to give credence to investigations made by the Assessing Officer, Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department as well as SEBI on astronomical rise in price of shares of companies which have no net worth

Jyoti Swaroop Kashuka(HUF), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-30(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/KOL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Jyoti Swaroop Kashuka Ito, Ward-30(1), (Huf) Kolkata 12B, Mandevilla Gardens, Vs. Gariahat, Kolkata – 700019. Pan: Aaghj 6224 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri K.K. Goswami, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021- 22/1037888892(1) Dated 17.12.2021 Against The Assessment Order Passed By Income Tax Officer, Ward – 30(1), Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act) Dated 12.12.2017 For Ay 2015-16. 2. Sole Issue Involved In The Present Appeal Relates To Addition Made By The Ld. Ao Of ₹ 6,86,400/- As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act In Respect Of Sale Of Shares Of Gcm Securities Ltd, For Which 2 Jyoti Swaroop Kashuka (Huf) Ay 2015-16 Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are Four In Number. Same Are Not Reproduced For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Goswami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 68

explanatory, which your honour may recognize.” 8. While dealing with the matter, ld. CIT(A) laid his entire emphasis on the report of the Investigation Wing of the Department and made an extensive write-up on the subject matter of black money and plugging of loopholes in the system

Pujala Mahesh Babu, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 135/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A(3)

crores as additional income in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. He had filed an affidavit to this effect before the Investigation Wing and he had even submitted how he had arrived at the additional income with reference to the seized Page ... assessee had admitted Rs.15 crores as additional income in the statement recorded u/s.132(4). He had filed an Affidavit to this effect before the Investigation wing, and he had even submitted as to how he had arrived at additional income with reference to the seized material. The Page

Pujala Mahesh Babu, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 134/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A(3)

crores as additional income in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. He had filed an affidavit to this effect before the Investigation Wing and he had even submitted how he had arrived at the additional income with reference to the seized Page ... assessee had admitted Rs.15 crores as additional income in the statement recorded u/s.132(4). He had filed an Affidavit to this effect before the Investigation wing, and he had even submitted as to how he had arrived at additional income with reference to the seized material. The Page

Pujala Mahesh Babu, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 133/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A(3)

crores as additional income in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. He had filed an affidavit to this effect before the Investigation Wing and he had even submitted how he had arrived at the additional income with reference to the seized Page ... assessee had admitted Rs.15 crores as additional income in the statement recorded u/s.132(4). He had filed an Affidavit to this effect before the Investigation wing, and he had even submitted as to how he had arrived at additional income with reference to the seized material. The Page

Pujala Mahesh Babu, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 132/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A(3)

crores as additional income in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. He had filed an affidavit to this effect before the Investigation Wing and he had even submitted how he had arrived at the additional income with reference to the seized Page ... assessee had admitted Rs.15 crores as additional income in the statement recorded u/s.132(4). He had filed an Affidavit to this effect before the Investigation wing, and he had even submitted as to how he had arrived at additional income with reference to the seized material. The Page

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Pujala Mahesh Babu, Ranga Reddy

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 126/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A(3)

crores as additional income in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. He had filed an affidavit to this effect before the Investigation Wing and he had even submitted how he had arrived at the additional income with reference to the seized Page ... assessee had admitted Rs.15 crores as additional income in the statement recorded u/s.132(4). He had filed an Affidavit to this effect before the Investigation wing, and he had even submitted as to how he had arrived at additional income with reference to the seized material. The Page

M/S. Bishandayal Jewellers, Cuttack vs. Principal CIT (Central), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 252/CTK/2020[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack23 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

issues. The Pr. CIT, Hyderabad on the ground that there was a difference between the admitted income and the income estimated by the Investigation Wing and income disclosed in the return of income, observed that the difference should have been sorted out by conducting joint meeting between the Investigation Wing ... submission by ld AR that the AO in pages 2 to 37 of the assessment order has extracted the appraisal report of the investigation wing. Pages 42 to 44 are the show cause notice issued on the assessee, pages 44 to 45 are the reply of the assessee

Esthdev Financial Avisor Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 63/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(5)Section 73Section 73(1)

fact and the circumstances of the above case and in law, the AO reopened the case only on the basis of information received from investigation wing of Mumbai and therefore rendering the whole assessment bad in law and also recording the reason wrongly by stating that appellant received bogus LTCG ... declaring therein total loss of Rs.1,67,356/-. The assessment was finalised on 30.03.2015. Thereafter information was received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee company has entered into certain transactions. Accordingly, the case was reopened after recoding reasons for reopening the assessment under Section

Ramesh Shamji Shah, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 5(3), Pune

ITA 2135/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2112/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shyamjibhai Shivjibhai Shah, The Income Tax Officer, 1881, Sadashiv Peth, Vs Ward-6(1), Pune Pune 411 030 Pan : Adxps4118H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2135/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ramesh Shamji Shah, The Income Tax Officer, 690/1, Shukarwar Peth, Vs Ward-5(3), Pune Pune 411 002 Pan : Adxps4093F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

well as his son’s statements wherein they simply denied their respective signatures despite the fact that the loose sheets received from Investigation Wing had duly indicated them to have acquired the two shops. He thus proceeded to treat this entire sum in assessee’s hands on protective and substantive

Shyamjibhai Shivajibhai Shah, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 6(1), Pune

ITA 2112/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2112/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shyamjibhai Shivjibhai Shah, The Income Tax Officer, 1881, Sadashiv Peth, Vs Ward-6(1), Pune Pune 411 030 Pan : Adxps4118H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2135/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ramesh Shamji Shah, The Income Tax Officer, 690/1, Shukarwar Peth, Vs Ward-5(3), Pune Pune 411 002 Pan : Adxps4093F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

well as his son’s statements wherein they simply denied their respective signatures despite the fact that the loose sheets received from Investigation Wing had duly indicated them to have acquired the two shops. He thus proceeded to treat this entire sum in assessee’s hands on protective and substantive

Asst CIT CC 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Dev Engineers, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 664/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Section 153CSection 69C

vouchers / bills, assessee submitted that they being voluminious and were lying in godown and hence, it could not be submitted immediately when the Investigation wing directed the assessee to submit the same. However, the assessee submitted the sample copies of the vouchers and its evidences before the ld. AO during ... reasonable force in the argument of the assessee that labour remains mobile and it is likely that the notices of ld. AO or Investigation Wing could not reach the respective labour parties. Having appreciated the entire contentions of the assessee, in order to plug the Revenue leakage

M/S Dev Engineers, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 508/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Section 153CSection 69C

vouchers / bills, assessee submitted that they being voluminious and were lying in godown and hence, it could not be submitted immediately when the Investigation wing directed the assessee to submit the same. However, the assessee submitted the sample copies of the vouchers and its evidences before the ld. AO during ... reasonable force in the argument of the assessee that labour remains mobile and it is likely that the notices of ld. AO or Investigation Wing could not reach the respective labour parties. Having appreciated the entire contentions of the assessee, in order to plug the Revenue leakage

M/S Dev Engineers, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 507/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Section 153CSection 69C

vouchers / bills, assessee submitted that they being voluminious and were lying in godown and hence, it could not be submitted immediately when the Investigation wing directed the assessee to submit the same. However, the assessee submitted the sample copies of the vouchers and its evidences before the ld. AO during ... reasonable force in the argument of the assessee that labour remains mobile and it is likely that the notices of ld. AO or Investigation Wing could not reach the respective labour parties. Having appreciated the entire contentions of the assessee, in order to plug the Revenue leakage

M/S Dev Engineers, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 506/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Section 153CSection 69C

vouchers / bills, assessee submitted that they being voluminious and were lying in godown and hence, it could not be submitted immediately when the Investigation wing directed the assessee to submit the same. However, the assessee submitted the sample copies of the vouchers and its evidences before the ld. AO during ... reasonable force in the argument of the assessee that labour remains mobile and it is likely that the notices of ld. AO or Investigation Wing could not reach the respective labour parties. Having appreciated the entire contentions of the assessee, in order to plug the Revenue leakage

Argan Traders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 324/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

assessee filed its return of income on 27.11.2012 reporting a total income of Rs.1,020/-. Upon receipt of information from the Office of the Investigation Wing of the Department, Kolkata, in the course of assessment, ld. Assessing Officer sought explanation on the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- received ... stated that the impugned assessment was reopened pursuant to information received from the Department, 4 AY: 2012-13 Argan Traders Pvt. Ltd. Investigation Wing since the returned income of the assessee is a meagre amount of Rs.1,020, who has charged a premium of Rs.490/- on the face value

Naresh Kumar Arora, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CA shri Rajendra Sisodia,AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanajy Dhariwal, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Income Tax act, 1961. 6. It is stated that the Information referred to in the reasons for reopening is the report of the Investigation wing. Calcutta dated 27.04.2015 which was circulated to all the CCIT regions, CCIT Rajasthan being one of them. This report was very much available with ... income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment 12. Without prejudice to the above, the reassessment notice is invalid as it is merely based on Investigation Wing information. In the assessee's case, the AO received information from the Investigation Wing. Kolkata who had carried out survey/ search operations wherein

“investigation wing”

Leading authorities on investigation wing

Judgments citing investigation wing

ACIT, CC-4, Jaipur vs. Shri Mukut Behari Agarwal, Jaipur

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 5 Kolkata vs. Shyam Kumar and Sons HUF

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs. Panchmukhi Management Services Pvt. Ltd

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 5, Kolkata vs. Amit Kumar Jain

Jyoti Swaroop Kashuka(HUF), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-30(1), Kolkata

Pujala Mahesh Babu, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

Pujala Mahesh Babu, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

Pujala Mahesh Babu, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

Pujala Mahesh Babu, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Pujala Mahesh Babu, Ranga Reddy

M/S. Bishandayal Jewellers, Cuttack vs. Principal CIT (Central), Hyderabad

Esthdev Financial Avisor Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

Ramesh Shamji Shah, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 5(3), Pune

Shyamjibhai Shivajibhai Shah, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 6(1), Pune

Asst CIT CC 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Dev Engineers, Mumbai

M/S Dev Engineers, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (1), Mumbai

M/S Dev Engineers, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (1), Mumbai

M/S Dev Engineers, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (1), Mumbai

Argan Traders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Kolkata

Naresh Kumar Arora, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur