← 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

Kritika Talwar, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 4, New Dehli

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 1608/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

search and seizure action. The incriminating material was also confronted to the main persons of the Talwar Group and Duggal Group by the Investigation Wing as per Annexure-A which is mentioned at page-28 of the impugned order. 43 ITA.No.1813/Del./2019 Shri Sanjay Duggal, Faridabad etc., & 51batch appeals ... appraisal report and seized documents and statements recorded at the time of search and panchanamas by the Addl/JCIT, Central Range, by the Investigation Wing. Thereafter, there are regular discussions between the A.O. and his Addl./JCIT, Central Range, as to which assessees are covered by Section 153A and which

Smt. Sarita Gupta, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(4), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 503/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2015-16

Section 68

Long Term Capital Gain on the sale of equity shares of CCL International Ltd. which the Assessing Officer, relying on the report of investigation wing of Kolkata, held to be bogus and made the addition u/s 68 of the Act. The assessee had purchased 25,000 shares from Suktara Trade ... raised by the authorities below is that the scrip from which the assessee had earned Long Term Capital Gain has been held by the Investigation Wing of the Revenue to be a paper entity and which has further held that this scrip was being used for creating artificial capital gain

Excellent Shares & Finance Services Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Pashupati Shares & Finance Services Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ITO 13 (1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 7002/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Excellent Shares & Finance The Income Tax Officer – Services Pvt. Ltd., 13(1)(3), (Formerly Known As Pashupati Room No. 225, Aayakar Shares & Finance Services Pvt. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 601, Krishna Utsav, Khandelwal Leyout, Evershine Nagar, Malad (W), Mubmai - 400064 Pan: Aadcp0465C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Pashupati Derivatives & The Income Tax Officer – Commodities Pvt. Ltd. 13(1)(3), (Formerly Known As Pashupati Room No. 225, Aayakar Stock & Commodities Pvt. Ltd.), Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, 806, 8Th Floor, Dlh Park, S.V. Mumbai – 400020 Road, Near Mtnl Exchange, Goregaon (W), Mumbai – 400062 Pan: Aadcp8027G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Sethi (Dr) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/01/2021

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sethi (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147

reopening the assessment submitted that only on the basis of certain information received Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2011-12 from the Investigation Wing, Ahmedabad, the Assessing Officer has mechanically reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. He submitted, there was no information available with the Assessing Officer regarding

Shri Sunder Das Sonkia, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1383/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1383/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sunder Das Sonkia, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Sonkia Bhawan, Sms, Highway, Ward-1(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 09/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.O., Cuke Shri Sunder Das Sonkhiya, Vs. Ward-1(2), Prop.- M/S Naveen Jewellers, Jaipur. Sonkhiya Bhawan, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeal Filed By The Assessee & The Cross Appeal Filed By The Revenue Arise Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 08/11/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee & The Revenue Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT)
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

made by the A.O. on account of disallowance of 25% of bogus purchases on the basis of corroborative information received from Investigation Wing, Mumbai is not sustainable and only a trading addition of Rs. 41,23,468/- be made by applying GP rate of 12%?” 2. Without prejudice ... plain reading of the reasons recorded, it can be noted that notice u/s 148 is issued solely on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing, Mumbai where it referred to various evidences found during search operation in case of Rajendra Jain group of cases. The primarily condition for initiating

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -12 vs. Smt. Bindu Garg

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/131/2020HC Delhi15 Jan 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 68

reads as under: “21. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the Assessing officer was carried away by the report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata. It can be seen that the entire assessment has been framed by the Assessing Officer without conducting any enquiry from the relevant parties ... independent source or evidence but has merely relied upon the statements recorded by the Investigation Wing as well as information received from the Investigation Wing. It is apparent from the Assessment Order that the Assessing Officer has not conducted any independent and separate enquiry in the case of the assessee

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-12 vs. Hardev Sahai Gupta ( Garg)

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/130/2020HC Delhi15 Jan 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 68

reads as under: “21. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the Assessing officer was carried away by the report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata. It can be seen that the entire assessment has been framed by the Assessing Officer without conducting any enquiry from the relevant parties ... independent source or evidence but has merely relied upon the statements recorded by the Investigation Wing as well as information received from the Investigation Wing. It is apparent from the Assessment Order that the Assessing Officer has not conducted any independent and separate enquiry in the case of the assessee

ACIT-18(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Jewellers Narandas & Sons, Mumbai

Accordingly, we allow ground no. 1 raised by the assessee in CO. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the assessment order, we notice that Ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is only on merit, t...

ITA 1226/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1226/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit-18(1), M/S Jewellers Narandas & Room No. 202, 2Nd Floor, बिधम/ Sons, 255, Sheik Menon Earnest House, Nariman Street, Zaveri Bazar, Vs. Point, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaafj2885J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & C.O. No. 59/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) M/S Jewellers Narandas & Acit-18(1), Room No. 202, 2Nd Floor, बिधम/ Sons, 255, Sheik Menon Street, Zaveri Bazar, Earnest House, Nariman Vs. Mumbai-400 002 Point, Mumbai-400 002 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Kumar G. Subrahmanyam, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri K. Shivaraman, Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.12.2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 14.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Vijay kumar GFor Respondent: Shri K. Shivaraman, AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

rejected the contentions /submissions made by the assessee. 6. AO heavily relied on the investigations made in the above said groups by the Investigation Wing of the Deptt. and came to the conclusion that assessee had made cash purchases of Rs. 4,60,17,324/- and assessee has utilized cash

Ssg Mercantile Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-24(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1864/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Apoorva Bhardwaj, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

said reopening of the assessment which was disposed of by the AO vide letter dated 29.01.2016. 2.2 As per information provided by the Investigation Wing, the assessee has obtained the accommodation entries amounting to Rs. 1,30,00,000/- from Sh. SK Jain Group, details of which ... further stated that the reasons to believe recorded by the AO are mechanically based on borrowed satisfaction of Investigation Wing, even does not disclose the nature of alleged accommodation entries, whether loan, share application, share capital etc. amounting to Rs. 1.30 crores is written without giving the specific details

Dhirendra International (P) Ltd., Neemuch vs. Pr. CIT Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

ITA 750/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue observing as follows :- 3.5 In view of the above findings of Investigation Wing, there was no reason for the AO to accept the Long Term Capital Gains Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 of the assessee as genuine ... carrying out the enquiries regarding the nature of security trade by the assessee and verification from seller, buyer and operators as brought by the Investigation Wing. The AO has not carried out any of above enquiries before the passing of order. The case was required to be examined from

Shri Manoj Mundra, Indore vs. PCIT Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

ITA 637/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue observing as follows :- 3.5 In view of the above findings of Investigation Wing, there was no reason for the AO to accept the Long Term Capital Gains Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 of the assessee as genuine ... carrying out the enquiries regarding the nature of security trade by the assessee and verification from seller, buyer and operators as brought by the Investigation Wing. The AO has not carried out any of above enquiries before the passing of order. The case was required to be examined from

Shri Manish Mundra, Indore vs. PCIT Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

ITA 635/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue observing as follows :- 3.5 In view of the above findings of Investigation Wing, there was no reason for the AO to accept the Long Term Capital Gains Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 of the assessee as genuine ... carrying out the enquiries regarding the nature of security trade by the assessee and verification from seller, buyer and operators as brought by the Investigation Wing. The AO has not carried out any of above enquiries before the passing of order. The case was required to be examined from

Shri Govind Das Mundra, Indore vs. PCIT Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

ITA 634/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue observing as follows :- 3.5 In view of the above findings of Investigation Wing, there was no reason for the AO to accept the Long Term Capital Gains Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 of the assessee as genuine ... carrying out the enquiries regarding the nature of security trade by the assessee and verification from seller, buyer and operators as brought by the Investigation Wing. The AO has not carried out any of above enquiries before the passing of order. The case was required to be examined from

Shri Aditya Mundra, Dewas vs. PCIT Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

ITA 632/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue observing as follows :- 3.5 In view of the above findings of Investigation Wing, there was no reason for the AO to accept the Long Term Capital Gains Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 of the assessee as genuine ... carrying out the enquiries regarding the nature of security trade by the assessee and verification from seller, buyer and operators as brought by the Investigation Wing. The AO has not carried out any of above enquiries before the passing of order. The case was required to be examined from

M/S. Charitra Gold Pvt. Ltd., Ratlam vs. The Pr. CIT, Ujjain

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

ITA 517/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue observing as follows :- 3.5 In view of the above findings of Investigation Wing, there was no reason for the AO to accept the Long Term Capital Gains Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 of the assessee as genuine ... carrying out the enquiries regarding the nature of security trade by the assessee and verification from seller, buyer and operators as brought by the Investigation Wing. The AO has not carried out any of above enquiries before the passing of order. The case was required to be examined from

Picheswar Gadde, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4638/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

that some of the amount which has been advanced to Jain Family has been given in cash. On analysis of impounded documents by the Investigation Wing revealed that the cash paid was found to be from the sale proceeds of other farm house by Shri Picheswar Gadde. Details of payment

The DCIT, Circle-3(3), Surat vs. M/S. Minaxi Diamonds, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 354/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.354/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Minaxi Diamonds, Income Tax, Circle-3(3), . 46-49, Siddhkutir Industrial Estate, Surat. Varachha Road, Surat – 395 006. [Pan: Aaefm 7791 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mehul K.Patel – Ar राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

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

dated 29.03.2014 was served upon the assessee. The assessment was reopened on the basis of information received from Deputy Director of Income Tax (DDIT), Investigation Wing, Surat wherein the Assessing Officer (AO) was informed about the investigation conducted by DDIT Surat about hawala entry provider, who were indulging in providing ... proceeded for reassessment. The AO noted that as per the information received from DDIT(Investigation Wing), Surat the assessee has sown purchases from Three hawala dealers, who have actually not purchased any diamonds, hence, there could be no sales. The assessee has shown purchases from three such parties: S.No Entry

The ACIT (Central), Ujjain vs. M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics & Packaging (P) Ltd., Ujjain

ITA 737/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

following four reasons:- (a) The AO erred in making additions merely on the basis of statements of third parties recorded by the Investigation Wing and without providing opportunity of their cross examination before making the impugned addition; (b) The AO erred in converting case selected for limited scrutiny to complete ... framing the assessment had not conducted any independent inquiry and he had merely relied upon certain so called inquiries conducted by the Investigation Wing and during the course of the entire assessment proceedings, only one notice u/s. 142 (1) dated 12.12.2018 was issued and in such notice too, no reference

ACIT (Central), Ujjain vs. M/S. Ariba Foods (P) Ltd., Indore

ITA 736/IND/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jan 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

following four reasons:- (a) The AO erred in making additions merely on the basis of statements of third parties recorded by the Investigation Wing and without providing opportunity of their cross examination before making the impugned addition; (b) The AO erred in converting case selected for limited scrutiny to complete ... framing the assessment had not conducted any independent inquiry and he had merely relied upon certain so called inquiries conducted by the Investigation Wing and during the course of the entire assessment proceedings, only one notice u/s. 142 (1) dated 12.12.2018 was issued and in such notice too, no reference

Faiza Hemeed, Chennai vs. ITO, International Taxation, Ward-1(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 187/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 187/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Faiza Hameed, The Income Tax Officer, No.60, Veerabadran Street, V. International Taxation, Nungambakkam, Ward-1(2), Chennai – 600 034. Chennai. Pan: Abwph4868A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. S.Vidhya, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G.Johnson, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021

For Appellant: Ms. S.Vidhya, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri G.Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

assessment proceedings the AO noted that a survey u/s.133A of the Act was conducted in the case of M/s.Paramount Builders (Chennai) Limited by the Investigation Wing on 05.03.2014. During the course of survey, it was ascertained that the assessee and 13 others had entered into Joint Development Agreement

M/S Kalyanji Velji (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2284/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh-Ld. DR
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

image of seized papers was also recovered from the mobile phone used by Shri Pankaj Goshar (PG) which was imaged in his presence by investigation wing using sophisticated forensic software. The image of above pages was present in the mobile phone of Pankaj Goshar in the folder named ‘Umkant Manania