← All Phrases

“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
97
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
96
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
90
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
81
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
78
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
56
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

Jr Industries, Dausa vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 26/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 263

PCIT, the ld. PCIT noticed that the assessment in the present case was re-opened on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing, Jaipur about the transaction of Rs.11,80,000/- as bogus sales made through accommodation entries. The ld. PCIT was of the view that the A.O. erred ... these cases, the A.O. the AO has issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of the investigation made by the Investigation wing of the department that the assessee has provided accommodation 26 ITA 26/JP/2021_ JR Industries Vs PCIT & 2 Ors. entries in the garb of business transactions

Rajesh Ratilal Vanigota, Mumbai vs. ACIT 18 (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7190/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B.N. Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Thakur, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)

scrip of M/s. Sunrise Asian Ltd. was a penny stock as per the report of 3 Shri Rajesh Ratilal Vanigota investigation wing of Kolkata. Thereafter, the assessee sold these shares for a consideration of Rs.99,08,983/-.The AO was not satisfied with the genuineness of the transactions despite ... evidences to prove the transactions of sale and purchase of shares and the AO has only relied upon the report of the Investigation Wing. We further note that the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Anraj Heeralal Shah HUF vs. ITO in ITA No.4514/M/2018 dated

Rakesh Shantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO-18(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1775/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Raghuveer Madana, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 68

various evidences, contract notes, D-mat account, payment through banking channel and payment proof of STT etc. however, the AO by referring to the investigation wing report came to the conclusion that all these transactions were bogus. 3 Shri Rakesh Shantilal Shah Finally, the AO added the entire sale consideration ... candidly admitted by the key persons that snares of M/s. SRK Industries ltd are penny stock. In view of information provided by the investigation wing Kolkatta, the recommendation in SIT on Black money the A.O. required the appellant to prove his claim of exemption which the assessee has failed

Networth Agro Services Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 10(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 398/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 398/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Networth Agro Services Ltd. बिधम/ Ito-10(3)(1) 401, 4Th Floor, Mangal Villa- Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. B, Tejpal Road, Vile Parle Road, Mumbai-400020. (E), Mumbai-400057. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn2678L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Ms. Pramita Rathi Revenue By: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/10/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/11/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.11.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Ms. Pramita RathiFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni (DR)
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

crores. The assessee was one of the beneficiaries of such accommodation entries by way of share capital as per the details collected by the Investigation Wing. The assessee company has also received of Rs.45,00,000/- as Share Application Money from various entities from entities related to Shri Praveen Kumar

M/S Blue Circle Infratech, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 28 (1), Navi Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 352/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 148

Upon careful consideration, we note that the addition loans as bogus cash credit has been done solely on the basis of information received from Investigation wing regarding the search in case of Praveen Jain and bogus companies being operated by him. Assessee has duly submitted the loan confirmation and bank

M/S. Hindustan Marble and Granite, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 871/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R
Section 132Section 139(1)

under reverse methodology. Following explanations filed before Ld CIT(A) by the assessee clarifies this aspect:- “During the course of the investigation proceedings, the Investigation wing of the ITD identified shortage of physical stock to the extent of 4,02,108 sq.ft. (marble and granite). The appellant had not maintained

ACIT_3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bhoir Offshore P. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1927/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 3(1)(1) Vs. M/S Bhoir Offshore Co. Room No. 607, 6Th Pvt Ltd., Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 318, Maker Chambers Mk Road, Mumbai – V, Nariman Point, 400020. Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb5167A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Sanjiv K Jain. Dr Respondent By : Shri. Y.P.Trivedi. Ar Date Of Hearing 17.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 22.11.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8 Mumbai, Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri. Sanjiv K Jain. DRFor Respondent: Shri. Y.P.Trivedi. AR
Section 10(34)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 69C

unable to substantiate its purchases from the claim of suppliers who are already established hawala dealers by the Sales Tax Department and Investigation wing of the Income Tax Department. Accordingly the AO proceeded to complete the assessment considering the purchases made from such parties as bogus and disallowed the entire

Himanshu Technologies Solutions P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-11(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 7905/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2008-09]

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

assessee is a company and filed its return of income on 30.06.2008, declaring loss of Rs.1,140/-. On the basis of information received from Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department that the assessee has received share application money from the companies floated by Shri Taurn Goyal ... circumstances. New Legal ground numbered as ground no 2 2. That the reasons were recorded mechanically on the basis of general observations of the Investigation Wing of the Department without even verification of the original requisite for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. New Legal ground numbered as ground

Kamal Kishore Soni, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(7), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 33/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.31 & 125/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surt [Pan: Aakps3474Q] Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.32 & 126/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat. [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.33 & 127/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

perused the submission of the AR and considered verbal arguments. It is seen from the records that the AO had received report from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, which indicated that the appellant was beneficiary of accommodation entry operators. The said accommodation entry operator has admitted before the Investigation Wing that ... further seen that the ld AO has not made any independent enquiries of his own. He has just relied on the report of Investigation Wing, Mumbai. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Mart (281 CTM 241) has categorically held that “not furnishing the copy

Kamal Kishore Soni, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(7), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 32/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.31 & 125/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surt [Pan: Aakps3474Q] Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.32 & 126/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat. [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.33 & 127/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

perused the submission of the AR and considered verbal arguments. It is seen from the records that the AO had received report from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, which indicated that the appellant was beneficiary of accommodation entry operators. The said accommodation entry operator has admitted before the Investigation Wing that ... further seen that the ld AO has not made any independent enquiries of his own. He has just relied on the report of Investigation Wing, Mumbai. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Mart (281 CTM 241) has categorically held that “not furnishing the copy

Kamal Kishore Soni, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(7), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 31/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.31 & 125/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surt [Pan: Aakps3474Q] Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.32 & 126/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat. [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.33 & 127/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

perused the submission of the AR and considered verbal arguments. It is seen from the records that the AO had received report from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, which indicated that the appellant was beneficiary of accommodation entry operators. The said accommodation entry operator has admitted before the Investigation Wing that ... further seen that the ld AO has not made any independent enquiries of his own. He has just relied on the report of Investigation Wing, Mumbai. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Mart (281 CTM 241) has categorically held that “not furnishing the copy

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(7), Surat vs. Kamal Kishore Soni, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 127/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.31 & 125/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surt [Pan: Aakps3474Q] Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.32 & 126/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat. [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.33 & 127/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

perused the submission of the AR and considered verbal arguments. It is seen from the records that the AO had received report from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, which indicated that the appellant was beneficiary of accommodation entry operators. The said accommodation entry operator has admitted before the Investigation Wing that ... further seen that the ld AO has not made any independent enquiries of his own. He has just relied on the report of Investigation Wing, Mumbai. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Mart (281 CTM 241) has categorically held that “not furnishing the copy

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(7), Surat vs. Kamal Kishore Soni, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 126/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.31 & 125/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surt [Pan: Aakps3474Q] Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.32 & 126/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat. [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.33 & 127/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

perused the submission of the AR and considered verbal arguments. It is seen from the records that the AO had received report from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, which indicated that the appellant was beneficiary of accommodation entry operators. The said accommodation entry operator has admitted before the Investigation Wing that ... further seen that the ld AO has not made any independent enquiries of his own. He has just relied on the report of Investigation Wing, Mumbai. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Mart (281 CTM 241) has categorically held that “not furnishing the copy

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(7), Surat vs. Kamal Kishore Soni, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 125/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.31 & 125/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surt [Pan: Aakps3474Q] Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.32 & 126/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat. [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.33 & 127/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

perused the submission of the AR and considered verbal arguments. It is seen from the records that the AO had received report from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, which indicated that the appellant was beneficiary of accommodation entry operators. The said accommodation entry operator has admitted before the Investigation Wing that ... further seen that the ld AO has not made any independent enquiries of his own. He has just relied on the report of Investigation Wing, Mumbai. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Mart (281 CTM 241) has categorically held that “not furnishing the copy

ACIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bhoir Dredging Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1926/MUM/2020[2008-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2021AY 2008-10

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 3(1)(1) Vs. M/S Bhoir Dredging Room No. 607, 6Th Co. Pvt Ltd., Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 318, Maker Chambers Mk Road, Mumbai – V, Nariman Point, 400020. Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb0473D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Y.P Trivedi. Adv Respondent By : Shri Sanjiv K. Jain Date Of Hearing 17.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 22.11.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8 Mumbai, Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Y.P Trivedi. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjiv K. Jain
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

from the claim of M/s Bhoir Dredging Co. Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. suppliers who are already established hawala dealers by the Sales Tax Department and Investigation wing of the Income Tax Department. Accordingly the AO proceeded to complete the assessment considering the purchases made from such parties as bogus and disallowed

DCIT 1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Prince Marine Transport Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 6688/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-1(2)(2), M/S Prince Marine Transport R. No. 535, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Services Pvt. Ltd., Roopam M.K. Road, Building, 2Nd Floor, 239 P Mumbai-400020. D”Mello Road, Mumbai-400 001. Pan No. Aaecp 3695 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2021

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, DR
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued information from Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, Mumbai and it is inferred by the Assessing Officer that assessee is one of the beneficiaries of hawala transactions routed through the hawala dealers who have merely issued bills ... disallowed from the work-in-progress of the vessels A2, A3 & A4. A survey action was conducted on Shri Dilip S. Doshi by the Investigation Wing, Mumbai in which Shri Dilip S. Doshi accepted that he was into the business of providing accommodation bills from the entities managed

B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., New Delhi vs. Prcit, Central-2, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2835/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati
Section 143(3)Section 263

before hearing of the appeal.’’ 3. The search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted by the Investigation Wing. For the assessment year 2014-15 the assessee had filed return of income on 29.11.2014 declaring loss of Rs.125,10,58,455/-. Thereafter assessee

ITO, Ward-17(1), New Delhi vs. Momentum Technologies P.Ltd, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5803/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 5803/Del/2017 (A.Y 2012-13) (Through Video Conferencing) Vs Momentum Technologies P. Ito Ward-17(1) Ltd. B-21, Moti Nagar, Room No. 323A, C. R. Building, New Delhi New Delhi Aaccm6467C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 68

declaring the additional commission income of Rs. 10,39,665. The Assessing Officer had received information and a report dated 14/03/2013 from the Investigation Wing, Delhi observed that the assessee had opened a bank account on 29/09/2010 with the ICICI Bank, 2/6, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi vide account ... trading business of computers was not reflected in the regular books of accounts and consequent upon the enquiry and investigation by the investigation Wing, the assessee had revised its income by declaring one percent as additional commission income from the cash deposits

Mirah Dekor Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 14, Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6809/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2021AY 2009-10
Section 133ASection 14ASection 234A

part of assessee. a) In view of above detailed and satisfaction note of AO on the basis of new facts unearthed by investigation wing and made available to AO it is held that AO was correct in assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 and has correctly issued notice u/s 148. The appeal

Smt. Yashoda, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1935/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132(4)

that the company, Tuni Textiles, was a penny stock company, based on the investigation conducted by the Kolkata Directorate of Investigation of department. The investigation wing of the department had recorded the statement of the brokers during the course of search proceedings u/s 132(4) of the I.T.Act, wherein ... stock used to manipulate the market and provide bogus LTCG. The A.O. after considering the financials of Tuni Textiles and the outcome of the Investigation Wing of Kolkata Directorate of Investigation, in the case of different broker / entry operators held that the assessee had arranged bogus LTCG and claimed such