“ investigation wing ”

ITA 3011/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2007-08

allegation of accommodation entry amounting Rs. 25,00,000/- taken from Shri S.K. Jain group of concerns who were searched on 14.09.2010 by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, some of the A.O’s did not examine the seized material in the form of cash 4 ITA. No.3009 ... books containing the details of cheques issued by such concerns seized from the premises of Shri S.K. Jain during the course of search. The Investigation Wing, Delhi, forwarded the hard copy of appraisal report to the then Commissioner, Delhi-III, which was received by him on 15.03.2013, the relevant seized

M/S Suraj Buildmart India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

ITA 3010/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

allegation of accommodation entry amounting Rs. 25,00,000/- taken from Shri S.K. Jain group of concerns who were searched on 14.09.2010 by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, some of the A.O’s did not examine the seized material in the form of cash 4 ITA. No.3009 ... books containing the details of cheques issued by such concerns seized from the premises of Shri S.K. Jain during the course of search. The Investigation Wing, Delhi, forwarded the hard copy of appraisal report to the then Commissioner, Delhi-III, which was received by him on 15.03.2013, the relevant seized

M/S Suraj Pulses Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

ITA 3009/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2007-08

allegation of accommodation entry amounting Rs. 25,00,000/- taken from Shri S.K. Jain group of concerns who were searched on 14.09.2010 by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, some of the A.O’s did not examine the seized material in the form of cash 4 ITA. No.3009 ... books containing the details of cheques issued by such concerns seized from the premises of Shri S.K. Jain during the course of search. The Investigation Wing, Delhi, forwarded the hard copy of appraisal report to the then Commissioner, Delhi-III, which was received by him on 15.03.2013, the relevant seized

M/S Suraj Pulses Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

ITA 247/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2021AY 2007-08

allegation of accommodation entry amounting Rs. 25,00,000/- taken from Shri S.K. Jain group of concerns who were searched on 14.09.2010 by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, some of the A.O’s did not examine the seized material in the form of cash 4 ITA. No.3009 ... books containing the details of cheques issued by such concerns seized from the premises of Shri S.K. Jain during the course of search. The Investigation Wing, Delhi, forwarded the hard copy of appraisal report to the then Commissioner, Delhi-III, which was received by him on 15.03.2013, the relevant seized

M/S Firepro Wireless & Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Ms Anima, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 14ASection 153A

seizure operation on the members of the Tulip Telecom Group including the assessee company. Simultaneous actions u/s 132A were also conducted by the investigation Wing on the so called suppliers of goods to the members of the Tulip Group. M/s Jay Enn Infotech Pvt. Ltd. was also ... made. The said supplier never appeared before the AO even during the assessment proceedings. The said party also had not come forward before the investigation wing to substantiate that it actually made sales to the members of Tulip Group of Companies. Thus it is noted that even though appellant

Reena Devi Ranka, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-6(1), Chennai

In the result, all the above appeals, filed by the respective assessee, are dismissed

ITA 39/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No: 2905/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri. Sandeep Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No. 109, Rainbow Plaza, Non Corporate Ward -6(3), Audiappa Naicken Street, Room No. 420, Bsnl Building, 4Th Floor, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079. No. 16, Greams Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai. [Pan: Bfnps 5811Q] आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No: 2906/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Vadamibai Jugarjji, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No. 41, Narayana Mudali Street, Non Corporate Ward -6(4), Sowcarpet, Room No. 421, Bsnl Building, 4Th Floor, Chennai – 600 079. No. 16, Greams Road, [Pan: Aafpj 8558D] Thousand Lights, Chennai. आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No: 2907/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri. D. Uttamchand, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Narayana Mudali Street, Non Corporate Ward -6(3), Sowcarpet, Room No. 420, Bsnl Building, 4Th Floor, Chennai – 600 079. No. 16, Greams Road, [Pan: Aaapu 0375Q] Thousand Lights, Chennai.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

ITA 2907/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

term capital gain and claimed it as an exempt income u/s. 10(38). The Assessing Officers on the basis of the report of the investigation wing of the Revenue in Kolkata in which it came to the knowledge, inter alia, certain brokers named the shares held by these companies ... present for the respective assessee. We heard the Ld. DR. The Ld. DR submitted that on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata, the respective Assessing Officer re- opened each of the assessment, gave an opportunity to the respective assessee to cross-examine the brokers at Kolkata

Shri D. Uttamchand, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-6(3), Chennai

In the result, all the above appeals, filed by the respective assessee, are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No: 2905/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri. Sandeep Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No. 109, Rainbow Plaza, Non Corporate Ward -6(3), Audiappa Naicken Street, Room No. 420, Bsnl Building, 4Th Floor, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079. No. 16, Greams Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai. [Pan: Bfnps 5811Q] आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No: 2906/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Vadamibai Jugarjji, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No. 41, Narayana Mudali Street, Non Corporate Ward -6(4), Sowcarpet, Room No. 421, Bsnl Building, 4Th Floor, Chennai – 600 079. No. 16, Greams Road, [Pan: Aafpj 8558D] Thousand Lights, Chennai. आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No: 2907/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri. D. Uttamchand, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Narayana Mudali Street, Non Corporate Ward -6(3), Sowcarpet, Room No. 420, Bsnl Building, 4Th Floor, Chennai – 600 079. No. 16, Greams Road, [Pan: Aaapu 0375Q] Thousand Lights, Chennai.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

ITA 2906/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

term capital gain and claimed it as an exempt income u/s. 10(38). The Assessing Officers on the basis of the report of the investigation wing of the Revenue in Kolkata in which it came to the knowledge, inter alia, certain brokers named the shares held by these companies ... present for the respective assessee. We heard the Ld. DR. The Ld. DR submitted that on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata, the respective Assessing Officer re- opened each of the assessment, gave an opportunity to the respective assessee to cross-examine the brokers at Kolkata

Smt. Vadambibai Jugrajji, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-6(4), Chennai

In the result, all the above appeals, filed by the respective assessee, are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No: 2905/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri. Sandeep Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No. 109, Rainbow Plaza, Non Corporate Ward -6(3), Audiappa Naicken Street, Room No. 420, Bsnl Building, 4Th Floor, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079. No. 16, Greams Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai. [Pan: Bfnps 5811Q] आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No: 2906/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Vadamibai Jugarjji, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No. 41, Narayana Mudali Street, Non Corporate Ward -6(4), Sowcarpet, Room No. 421, Bsnl Building, 4Th Floor, Chennai – 600 079. No. 16, Greams Road, [Pan: Aafpj 8558D] Thousand Lights, Chennai. आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No: 2907/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri. D. Uttamchand, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Narayana Mudali Street, Non Corporate Ward -6(3), Sowcarpet, Room No. 420, Bsnl Building, 4Th Floor, Chennai – 600 079. No. 16, Greams Road, [Pan: Aaapu 0375Q] Thousand Lights, Chennai.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

ITA 2905/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

term capital gain and claimed it as an exempt income u/s. 10(38). The Assessing Officers on the basis of the report of the investigation wing of the Revenue in Kolkata in which it came to the knowledge, inter alia, certain brokers named the shares held by these companies ... present for the respective assessee. We heard the Ld. DR. The Ld. DR submitted that on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata, the respective Assessing Officer re- opened each of the assessment, gave an opportunity to the respective assessee to cross-examine the brokers at Kolkata

Shri Sandeep Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-6(3), Chennai

In the result, all the above appeals, filed by the respective assessee, are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No: 2905/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri. Sandeep Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No. 109, Rainbow Plaza, Non Corporate Ward -6(3), Audiappa Naicken Street, Room No. 420, Bsnl Building, 4Th Floor, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079. No. 16, Greams Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai. [Pan: Bfnps 5811Q] आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No: 2906/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Vadamibai Jugarjji, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No. 41, Narayana Mudali Street, Non Corporate Ward -6(4), Sowcarpet, Room No. 421, Bsnl Building, 4Th Floor, Chennai – 600 079. No. 16, Greams Road, [Pan: Aafpj 8558D] Thousand Lights, Chennai. आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No: 2907/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri. D. Uttamchand, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Narayana Mudali Street, Non Corporate Ward -6(3), Sowcarpet, Room No. 420, Bsnl Building, 4Th Floor, Chennai – 600 079. No. 16, Greams Road, [Pan: Aaapu 0375Q] Thousand Lights, Chennai.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

ITA 6758/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

term capital gain and claimed it as an exempt income u/s. 10(38). The Assessing Officers on the basis of the report of the investigation wing of the Revenue in Kolkata in which it came to the knowledge, inter alia, certain brokers named the shares held by these companies ... present for the respective assessee. We heard the Ld. DR. The Ld. DR submitted that on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata, the respective Assessing Officer re- opened each of the assessment, gave an opportunity to the respective assessee to cross-examine the brokers at Kolkata

ITO 23 (3)(6), Mumbai vs. M/S R A Industrial Metals, Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

return of income for AY 2010-11 on 15.10.2010 declaring total income at Rs.2,53,130/-. In this case information was received from the investigation wing of Sales Tax Department, Mumbai who had identified certain accommodation entry providers/bogus suppliers and the beneficiaries who had utilized the services of these bogus

Income Tax Officer 32 (3) (1), Mumbai vs. Ramrekha Shukla, Mumbai

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

ITA 5805/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5805/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito-32(3)(1) बिधम/ Ramrekha Shukla Room No.733, 7Th Floor, A/204, Riddhi Co. Operative Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Hsg. Ltd, Sai Baba Nagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai- Borivali (W), Mumbai- 400051. 400092. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aggpd6265J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Smita Verma (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Saboo सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/04/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.05.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-46, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “(I) "On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Restricting The Addition To 5% On Account Of Bogus Purchases, Without Appreciating The Fact That The Sales Tax Department Has Proved Beyond Doubt That The Parties Declared As Hawala Traders Were Involved In Providing Accommodation Entry Of Purchases

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh SabooFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148

5805/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 “5.1 Ground no. 1 I have perused the assessment order. The information received from the sales tax department and the investigation wing was authentic and reliable, therefore the reopening cannot be said to have been made on suspicion as alleged but the assessee. There

ACIT 17 (3), Mumbai vs. Sandeep Steels, Mumbai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1648/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1648/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit-17(3) M/S. Sandeep Steels Room No.137, 1St Floor बनाम/ 511, Ashirwad Building Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Ahmedabad Street, Carnac Bunder Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 009 Pan/Tan: Abafs-1100-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri T.S. Khalsa– Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 21/06/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa– Ld. DR

Section 143(3)

orders of lower authorities, we find that initial primary onus to prove the purchases was on assessee since specific information was received from investigation wing that the assessee procured bogus bills from as many as 8 entities. Though the assessee filed certain documentary evidences but it failed to substantiate

The ITO, Ward-2(2)(4), Surat vs. M/S. Pankaj Enka Pvt. Ltd., Surat

ITA 3050/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah - CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

investor companies is not co- related to the audit report. The AO issued commission u/s 131(1)(d) of the Act to the Investigation Wing, Delhi to investigate 7 companies which have invested in the above Investor company i.e. Yash BuildHome Developers Ltd. The Investigation Wing reported that summons could ... Company and the summons u/s 131 of the Act was issued and in compliance to the summons, the details have been submitted before the Investigation Wing, Delhi. The finding of the AO that the investor company authorized share capital was only of Rs.5,00,000/- is incorrect as the authorized

M/S Wembley'S Coop House Building Society Ltd., Mohali vs. ITO, W-6(4), Mohali

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 674/CHANDI/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Thakur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT

ITA 673/CHANDI/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

that if assessee had not received cash of Rs. 17,00,000/- from M/s Wembley Coop. H/B Society, he would have cooperated with investigation wing and furnished the requisite details / information as called for by investigation wing regarding the receipts of Rs. 17,00,000/-. Therefore non cooperative attitude

M/S Wembley'S Coop House Building Society Ltd., Mohali vs. ITO, W-6(4), Mohali

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Thakur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT

ITA 664/CHANDI/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

that if assessee had not received cash of Rs. 17,00,000/- from M/s Wembley Coop. H/B Society, he would have cooperated with investigation wing and furnished the requisite details / information as called for by investigation wing regarding the receipts of Rs. 17,00,000/-. Therefore non cooperative attitude

Sh. Satkar Singh Bawa, Mohali vs. ITO, W-6(4), Mohali

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Thakur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT

ITA 663/CHANDI/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

that if assessee had not received cash of Rs. 17,00,000/- from M/s Wembley Coop. H/B Society, he would have cooperated with investigation wing and furnished the requisite details / information as called for by investigation wing regarding the receipts of Rs. 17,00,000/-. Therefore non cooperative attitude

Sh. Satkar Singh Bawa, Mohali vs. ITO, W-6(4), Mohali

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Thakur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT