“investigation wing”

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Jainam Investments, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue as well as cross-\nobjection of the assessee are dismissed

case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) had erred\nin not appreciating the findings of the search and survey action conducted by\nthe Investigation Wing under 'Project Falcon' during which it was revealed that\nthe trading in BSE Equity Derivative Segment in cases of concerns under\ninvestigation were merely ... n12.12.2018, determining the total income at ₹6,60,25,080/-.\n\n3.1 Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received specific\nintelligence from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai indicating that the\nassessee had allegedly booked fictitious losses through coordinated\nand premeditated trading in illiquid stock options on the stock\nexchange, amounting

ITO-34(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Haresh S Jhaveri HUF, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosaina.Ys: 2013-14

unexplained expenditure to the tune of Rs.1,98,435/- under section 69C of the Act, without appreciating the facts and findings given by the Investigation wing in its report that various brokers including M/s Baba Bhoothnath Commex Pvt. Ltd. were involved in manipulative trades to contrive loss for their trading ... further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact and findings given by the investigation wing in its report that various brokers including M/s Baba Bhoothnath Commex Pvt Ltd were involved in manipulative trades to contrive loss for their trading clients. It was further submitted that

Intergrator Consultants Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 1(4), Mumbai

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

part of the AO. It was further\nargued that the assessment was re-opened merely on the basis\nof information received from Investigation Wing and SEBI\nInterim Order, which was under a different law with a different\npurpose and which was subsequently set aside and no\nindependent enquiry was made ... reversal trading. In this\nway the AO had issued notice u/s 148 of the Act by merely acting\nmechanically on the information supplied by investigation wing\nand has not conducted any independent inquiry of its own. In this\nregard reliance has been placed upon the decision in the case

ACIT Circle 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Ks Distribution and Sales Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Acit, Circle (3)(3)(1) Ks Distribution & Room No. 522 Sales Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 101 Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi M.K. Road Ind. State, New Link Mumbai-400 020. Road, Andheri West Mumbai-400 053. Pan : Aaacg1667L Appellant Respondent

hence they are eligible to claim ‘long term capital gains’ which is exempt from taxation. The Revenue placed reliance on the report of Kolkata Investigation Wing where it was mentioned that the share price was artificially inflated only to allow the existing shareholders to exit at higher price and bring ... their unaccounted money into the system by claiming 2 KS Distribution and Sales Pvt. Ltd. exempt capital gains and not paying the tax. The Investigation Wing of Kolkata recorded a statement from Mr. Jagdish Purohit, who had stated that he resorted to manipulation of the scrip JMD Telefilms and helped

Mehul Hansukh Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

based on incorrect and erroneous information. • The Hon'ble CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the information received from the Investigation Wing regarding the alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) was factually incorrect as the Appellant had never reported any Long-Term Capital Gains in his return of income ... documents and evidence furnished by the assessee categorised the scrip of SSL as penny stock with weak fundamentals based on the report received from Investigation Wing. The Ld. AO noted that as per the report of Investigation Wing, the price of the scrip of SSL was manipulated to provide accommodation

Domet Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri7 (A.Y.2008-09) Domet Trading Private Vs. Dcit-5(1)(2) Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Shop No. B/1, Ground Karve Road, Floor, Mahavir Darshan Mumbai-400020. Saidham, 3Rd Kumbharwada Lane, Grigaon, Mumbai-400004. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaccd5181C Appellant .. Respondent

argued that the impugned addition was not justified as the same had been made simply on the basis of report received from the investigation wing and no independent enquiry or verification was made by the ld. AO. Lastly, ld. AR has pointed out that the mandatory notice ... inadvertant and the same stood rectified vide corrigendum letter issued on 23.04.2013. He further pointed out that detailed investigation was made by the Investigation wing in the Bhanwarlal Jain Group of cases during which it was found that the assessee had taken bogus accommodation entries from the entities

DCIT Circle-41(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Deepak Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance to 15% especially when there were categorical findings of Investigation Wing and Sales Tax Department followed by non-service of notices u/s 133(6) of the Act. The revenue further contends that the assessee failed to prove ... excluding S.K. Traders to be entirely bogus that represented accommodation entries. The Ld. CIT(A) disregarded the specific findings of the Ld. AO and Investigation Wing and mechanically applied general case laws for profit estimation without there being any evidence to support the genuineness of the purchases. We find that

Abdul Hamid Abdul Majid Nathani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 22(1), Mumbai, Maharashtra

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalabdul Hamid Abdul Majid Nathani Flat No.3102, 31St Floor Kalapataru Heights, Dr. A.L. Nair Road Agripada, Mumbai - 400011 ............... Appellant Pan: Aabpn1625K V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, – 22(1), Mumbai ……………… Respondent Mumbai.

appeal before us. 6. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that the AO merely copied the information received from the Investigation Wing, which had made vague allegations. The learned AR by referring to the reasons recorded by the AO while reopening the assessment submitted that ... learned DR”) vehemently relied upon the order passed by the lower authorities and submitted that the AO proceeded on the information received from the Investigation Wing. 8. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. As the assessee has challenged the very basis