“investigation wing”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 14712,584 judgments

The decision most relied on for investigation wing is Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (329 ITR 110), cited in 217 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on investigation wing

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.

PCIT v. M/s. Kesoram Industries 57

417 ITR 334 · 2019 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessment completed under Section 143(3) cannot be reopened after four years solely based on third-party information or opinions, such as from an Investigation Wing, without the Assessing Officer applying their own independent mind to the material and having new, independent material on record.

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.

Aradhna Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

91 Taxmann.com 119 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer is justified in reopening assessment proceedings based on information received from the Investigation Wing, even when recording findings also rely on documents already on record, provided all procedural requirements for reassessment are met.

Judgments citing investigation wing

Beena Jitendra Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7926/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7926/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ms. Beena Jitendra Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Agfpk-4477-Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR

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

r.w.s. 153A on 30/03/2016 determining the income at Rs.17.80 Lacs. 4.2 The case was reopened pursuant to receipt of certain information from investigation wing, Kolkata wherein it was alleged that the assessee was beneficiary of bogus Long-Term Capital gains (LTCG) by dealing in a scrip namely M/s Unisys Software ... case of the assessee. The legal grounds, thus raised by the assessee, were dismissed. 5.2 Proceeding further, Ld.CIT(A), going by the findings of investigation wing, observed that the scrip of Unisys was penny-stock scrip which was controlled by entry operators which was evident from statements of various brokers

Akshita Pankaj Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7925/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7925/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ms. Akshita Pankaj Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aggpk-1141-G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR

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

r.w.s. 153A on 30/03/2016 determining the income at Rs.14.88 Lacs. 4.2 The case was reopened pursuant to receipt of certain information from investigation wing, Kolkata wherein it was alleged that the assessee was beneficiary of bogus Long-Term Capital gains (LTCG) by dealing in a scrip namely M/s Unisys Software ... case of the assessee. The legal grounds, thus raised by the assessee, were dismissed. 5.2 Proceeding further, Ld.CIT(A), going by the findings of investigation wing, observed that the scrip of Unisys was penny-stock scrip which was controlled by entry operators which was evident from statements of various brokers

Nilesh Vasantlal Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7923/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7923/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7924/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Nilesh Vasantlal Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpk-2207-J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR

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

framed for both the years u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A on 30/03/2016. 4.2 The assessments were reopened pursuant to receipt of certain information from investigation wing, Kolkata wherein it was alleged that the assessee was beneficiary of bogus Long-Term Capital gains (LTCG) by dealing in a scrip namely ... cases of the assessee. The legal grounds, thus raised by the assessee, were dismissed. 5.2 Proceeding further, Ld.CIT(A), going by the findings of investigation wing, observed that the scrip of Unisys was penny-stock scrip which was controlled by entry operators which was evident from statements of various brokers

Vasantlal Nyalchand Kikvat Through L/H Pankaj V Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7921/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7921/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7922/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Vasantlal Nyalchand Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), 1915, 19Th Floor (Through L/H Shri Pankaj V.Kikavat) बिाम/ 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Air India Building Vs. Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Nariman Point Mumbai-400 077 Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpk-6317-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

appreciate that the reopening of assessment was not initiated on the basis of any fresh, tangible material inasmuch as the report of the Kolkata Investigation Wing was dated April 27, 2015, whereas the original assessment under S. 143(3) read with S.153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was completed ... failed to appreciate that the Appellant was not even a party named by any of the persons subject to search/scrutiny by the Kolkata Investigation Wing, and the department could not prove any nexus with the Appellant and such persons. Similarly, no unaccounted cash was found leading to any adverse inference

Pankaj Vasantlal Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7919/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7919/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7920/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Pankaj Vasantlal Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Agzpk-8464-F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR

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

ACIT Cir. 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Excelhone Manufacturing Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1350/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Acit – Circle – 15(1)(1) V. M/S. Excelhone Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., 304, Building No. 6 Room No. 470, 4Th Floor Millennium Business Park Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Koparkhairne, Navi Mumbai - 400709 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabce6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

For Appellant: None

Section 143(1)Section 147

appellant is a company engaged in the business of trading. Ld. AO made the addition on the basis of information received from the investigation wing of Income Tax Department, Mumbai that the Sales Tax Department had recorded the statements of certain hawala operators who had confirmed to have given bogus ... supporting documentary evidence to establish that the purchase was actually made by them from this party such as transportation documents, inward register etc. The investigation Wing of Mumbai had provided a list of hawala bill racketeers who were involved in issuing bills and also the list of beneficiaries. The Sales

Bhakti Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ACIT 30(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 7148/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

from the office of the DGIT(Inv.) has been mentioned. There was search & seizure action in case of Shri Sanjay Choudhary Group by the Investigation wing of the Department and specific information related to accommodation entries provided by the concerns of Shri Choudhary to the appellant was forwarded

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Amr Global Industries Limited, Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 41/HYD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Adv. Hema KatariaFor Respondent: Sri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)

have been made are nothing but mere accommodation entries. The fact regarding the parties involved are bogus is getting strengthened by the findings of Investigation Wing and bank statements. Assessee has failed to produce the parties without ascribing any reason for its inability to produce their genuineness, creditworthiness and identity ... made through banking channels and no evidence, to the effect that the Appellant Company received back such amounts, was found / gathered either by the investigation wing or by the ITO. Page 7 of 11 ITA No 41 of 2020 AMG Global Industries Ltd Further, he had accepted the sales affected

ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi vs. Luxman Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 817/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Vs Lumax Builders Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Bengali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacl2184R Co No.93/Del/2018 (Ita No.817/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Lumax Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 25, Bazar Lane, Central Circle-15, Bengali Market, New Delhi New Delhi. Pan: Aaacl2184R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Paramita M. Biswas, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 3Rd November, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010- 11. Co No.93/Del/2018 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Co Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Paramita M. Biswas, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

source and availability of fund by investor, I am of the considered view that the A.O has merely accepted the appraisal report of the Investigation Wing without meeting the touchstone tests of section 68 like- credit worthiness, identities and genuineness of transaction. Further A.O has made such addition stating that

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Hal Offshore Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, we hold that addition of share capital in the year under consideration has been made without relying on any incriminating material found during the course of search

ITA 6956/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Vs Hal Offshore Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Bengali Market, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Ms Paramita M. Biswas, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2Nd August, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is One Of The Group Companies Of Mmg Group & Has Business Interest In Several Segments Like Chartering & Leasing Of Vessels To Ongc & Shipping, Etc. In This Case, A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The It Act, 1961 Was Carried Out On 28Th March, 2015. During The Course Of Search, Documents & Data Storage Devices, Etc., Belonging To The Assessee Were Found & Seized. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th July, 2016 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.12,15,49,580/-. Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 20Th May, 2016 Which Was Duly Served On The Assessee. Subsequently, Notice U/S 142(1) Along With A Questionnaire Was Issued To The Assessee Calling For Certain Information. The Assessee Complied To The Said Questionnaire By Filing The Requisite Details.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Paramita M. Biswas, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

source and availability of fund by investor, I am of the view that the AO has only accepted the appraisal report of the Investigation Wing without meeting the touchstone tests of section 68 like- credit worthiness, identities and genuineness of transaction. Further A.O has made such addition stating that

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Moon Beverages Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, we hold that addition of share capital in the year under consideration has been made without relying on any incriminating material found during the course of search

ITA 6955/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Vs Moon Beverages Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Bengali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacm1635J Co No.06/Del/2019 (Ita No.6955/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Moon Beverages Ltd., Vs. Acit, 25, Bazar Lane, Central Circle-15, Bengali Market, New Delhi New Delhi. Pan: Aaacm1635J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Ms Paramita M. Biswas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2Nd August, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. Co No.06/Del/2019 The Assessee Has Filed Co Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Paramita M. Biswas, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153A

ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi vs. Lokpriya Trading (P) Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 4060/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT DR

Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

accordingly, he quashed the assessment. 7. Before us, the ld. CIT DR submitted that there was definite information from the Investigation Wing on the basis of which reasons have been recorded which was sufficient to entertain reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. There

Ashok Kumar Agarwal & Sons (HUF), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-7(3), Mumbai

In the result , both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 647/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

case. In our considered opinion, subsequent to the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act, the ld.AO had indeed obtained information from the investigation wing that assessee was involved in certain accommodation entries by way of trading in penny stocks which had resulted in earning of exempt long term ... from Trusted Shares & Investments Ltd (Assessee’s Broker) to Vogue Commercial Co. Ltd 4.3. The ld. AO had relied on the findings of the investigation wing of Kolkata which are outlined in para 6 of his assessment order. The main grievance of the ld. AO is that rise in share

Shashi Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-7(3), Mumbai

In the result , both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 646/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

ITO-12(1)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Chamunda Finstock Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6333/MUM/2019[ 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyai.T.A. No. 6333/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2011-12) Vs. Chamunda Finstock Pvt.Ltd. Ito-12(1)(4) Room No.145A, 1St Floor Flat No.3, Ground Floor Aaykar Bhawan Asha Deep Bldg., Mumbai-400 020 Goras Wadi Maldad, Mumbai-400 064 Pan : Aaccc8422H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

determining the total income of the appellant at Rs. 1,77,050/-. 3. The AO in the assessment order referred to the investigation wing report and referred to modus operandi of such transactions. Referring to the above, AO held that assessee has shown in return of income the sale ... details filed by the appellant that the facts of the present case are totally different from the cases mentioned in the report of the Investigation Wing of Kolkata. In this case, the appellant has claimed neither long term capital gain nor short term capital gain. Nor has the appellant claimed

Vps Infratech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 26(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 127/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) on 04.06.2011. Subsequently, on the basis of information obtained from the Investigation Wing that during the course of search operation in the case of Sh. Surendra Kumar Jain group of cases, it was revealed that he was involved in providing accommodation entries

ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna vs. Bhola Ram Papers & Powers Private Limited, Arrah

ITA 32/PAT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153A

share application/share premium received from eleven (11) share subscribing companies. The AO in the statutory notice had specifically mentioned about report of the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, Kolkata, which had conducted investigation about bogus/paper companies such as the share subscribing companies and has conveyed to assessee certain ... adverse findings of the investigation wing vide notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and thereafter the AO in a chart form had given the name and PAN of the share subscribing companies; their addresses and the adverse finding of the Investigation Wing that “company found to be non-existent

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad vs. Karni Jewellers, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 1987/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godara

Section 143(3)Section 148

Diam and Sparsh Exports (P) Ltd and M/s. Moulimani Impex (P) Ltd. The above facts were revealed during the investigation made by the Investigation Wing, Mumbai on 03/10/2013. In the investigation it was also revealed that Sri Rajendra Jain, Sri Sanjay Choudhary and Shri Dharmichand Jain were operating and managing

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad vs. Sri Karni Jewellers, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 1986/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godara

Section 143(3)Section 148

ITO 34 (2)(6), Mumbai vs. Milind R Kadam, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 6875/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 147Section 68

broker, global report & Bank A/c. However the Assessing Officer has come to conclusion that since the assessee has traded in penny scrip & as the Investigation wing has carried out investigation & various confessional statements of entries operators that it is a fictitious transaction the assessee's submission cannot be accepted