← 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

Anil Kumar Jain, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3525/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3525/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Shri Anil Kumar Jain, No.39, Kalahi Pillai, Non-Corporate Ward 4(1), Chennai – 600 079. Chennai – 34. Pan: Aafpa9899Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Padmanabhan, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.01.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per N.R.S. Ganesan: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–5, Chennai Dated 28.09.2018 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Shri R. Padmanabhan, The Ld. Representative For The Assessee, Submitted That The Assessee Claimed Exemption Under Section 10(38) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act') In Respect Of Long Term

For Appellant: Shri R. Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 10(38)

assessee involved in inflating the shares of the company. Moreover, the copy of the investigation report said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata was not furnished to the assessee. On identical circumstances, this Tribunal in the case of Kanhaiyalal & Sons ... Representative also. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessees on the basis of the information said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata with regard to investment made by the assessees in the penny stock company. It is not in dispute that

Pushpa Bai, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 6 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 3523/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3523/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Smt. Pushpa Bai, No.44/39, Ek Agraharam Street, Non-Corporate Ward 5(5), Sowcarpet, Chennai - 34 Chennai – 600 079. Pan: Aahpp5053B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Padmanabhan, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.01.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per N.R.S. Ganesan: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–5, Chennai Dated 28.09.2018 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Shri R. Padmanabhan, The Ld. Representative For The Assessee, Submitted That The Assessee Claimed Exemption Under Section 10(38)

For Appellant: Shri R. Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 10(38)

assessee involved in inflating the shares of the company. Moreover, the copy of the investigation report said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata was not furnished to the assessee. On identical circumstances, this Tribunal in the case of Kanhaiyalal & Sons ... Representative also. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessees on the basis of the information said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata with regard to investment made by the assessees in the penny stock company. It is not in dispute that

B4U Television Network India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC- 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the A

ITA 4526/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blem/S. B4U Television Network India Ltd., V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 114, Road No. 15 Central Circle – 47 Next To Srl Ranbaxy, Midc Mumbai Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan: Aabcb1717B (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. B4U Television Network India Ltd., V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 114, Road No. 15 Central Circle – 8(4) Next To Srl Ranbaxy, Midc Mumbai Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan: Aabcb1717B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Nahta Department By : Ms. Kavita P.Kaushik

For Appellant: Shri Sunil NahtaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P.Kaushik

Traders. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that, in the course of the assessment proceedings Assessing Officer noticed that as per the information of investigation wing of the department M/s. Mehul Traders and M/s. Rahul Traders were providing accommodation entries and assessee is one of the beneficiary. Assessee was asked

B4U Television Network India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-8(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the A

ITA 4525/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blem/S. B4U Television Network India Ltd., V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 114, Road No. 15 Central Circle – 47 Next To Srl Ranbaxy, Midc Mumbai Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan: Aabcb1717B (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. B4U Television Network India Ltd., V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 114, Road No. 15 Central Circle – 8(4) Next To Srl Ranbaxy, Midc Mumbai Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan: Aabcb1717B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Nahta Department By : Ms. Kavita P.Kaushik

For Appellant: Shri Sunil NahtaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P.Kaushik

Traders. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that, in the course of the assessment proceedings Assessing Officer noticed that as per the information of investigation wing of the department M/s. Mehul Traders and M/s. Rahul Traders were providing accommodation entries and assessee is one of the beneficiary. Assessee was asked

DCIT - 13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Satyanis the Jewellery Store Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 3611/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Ravish Soodthe Dcit-13(2)(1) M/S Satyanis The Jewellery Store Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 146, 1St Floor, Plot No. 190, Savana Court, Turner Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai - 400050

For Appellant: Shri N. Padmanaban, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Hiten Vasant, A.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

DCIT-13(2)(1) Vs. M/s Satyanis The Jewellery Store Pvt. Ltd. 3. Information was received by the A.O from the investigation wing of the Income-tax department that search proceedings conducted on an infamous entry provider viz. Shri Bhanwarlal Jain, therein revealed that the assessee as a beneficiary

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Chetan R. Shah (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5781/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri G. Manjunathadcit,Cc-6(3) Vs. M/S Chetan R.Shah (Huf) Room No.1926, 19Th Floor 702, Marathon Max, Air India Building Kailash Bunglow Nariman Point Lala Devidayal Road Mumbai-400 021 Mulund(West) Mumbai-400 080 Pan/Gir No.Aaahc9579E Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 133A

lenders before the cheques were issued to the assesse. The assesee has also filed retractions statements of the Praveen Kumar Jain made before the investigation wing. In spite of all these evidences are filed before the Ld. AO, the Ld. AO has ignored all the evidences filed by the assesee ... unsecured loans to various beneficiaries. But, fact remains that statement of Praveen Kumar Jain has been subsequently retracted by filing an affidavit before the investigation wing and this fact has been brought to the notice of the Ld. AO. Once, statement relied upon by the Ld. AO was no longer

Laxmipat Dudheria(HUF), Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2377/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Padmanabha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 10(38)Section 68

raised specific grounds regarding violation of principles of natural justice and the action of the AO in relying on the findings of the Investigation wing without furnishing the material relating to the same to the Assessee and also on relying on material which were irrelevant. The CIT(A) has given ... raised 3 to 5 highlighting violation of principles of natural justice and the action of the AO in relying on the findings of the investigation wing without furnishing the material relating to the same to the Assessee and also on relying on material which were irrelevant. He submitted that

Anoop Jain, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 53(1), New Delhi

ITA 6703/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsian, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 68

cartel of brokers to allow benefit of long term capital gains to various persons. 8. Heavily drawing support from the report of the Investigation Wing, Kolkata, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that the long term capital gain earned by the assessee through entry providers is not genuine ... documentary evidences by referring to the general observations and modus operandi of the entry operators and further supporting his observations by report of the Investigation Wing. 23. It would not be out of place to mention here that LDPL, now known as Arihant Multi Commercial Ltd, is not a paper

Lalita Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-59(3), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 Appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 7911/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 2014-15] Anil Kumar Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward-16(1), Pot No. 54-55, Pkt G-30, New Delhi Sector-3, Rohini Delhi – 110085 (Pan: Aaipg7129E) [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. PiyushFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

furnish the proof of source for the purchase transactions. Thus, the entire transactions are against human probability. Also considering the findings of the Investigation Wing, inquiries conducted in the case of assessee, brokers, operators and the entry providers and the nature of transaction entered into by the assessee the LTCG

Yogesh Gupta & Sons (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-59(3), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 Appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 7910/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 2014-15] Anil Kumar Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward-16(1), Pot No. 54-55, Pkt G-30, New Delhi Sector-3, Rohini Delhi – 110085 (Pan: Aaipg7129E) [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. PiyushFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

furnish the proof of source for the purchase transactions. Thus, the entire transactions are against human probability. Also considering the findings of the Investigation Wing, inquiries conducted in the case of assessee, brokers, operators and the entry providers and the nature of transaction entered into by the assessee the LTCG

Rajesh Bohra (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-28(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 Appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 7317/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 2014-15] Anil Kumar Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward-16(1), Pot No. 54-55, Pkt G-30, New Delhi Sector-3, Rohini Delhi – 110085 (Pan: Aaipg7129E) [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. PiyushFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

furnish the proof of source for the purchase transactions. Thus, the entire transactions are against human probability. Also considering the findings of the Investigation Wing, inquiries conducted in the case of assessee, brokers, operators and the entry providers and the nature of transaction entered into by the assessee the LTCG

Anil Kumar Goel, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 Appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 5183/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 2014-15] Anil Kumar Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward-16(1), Pot No. 54-55, Pkt G-30, New Delhi Sector-3, Rohini Delhi – 110085 (Pan: Aaipg7129E) [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. PiyushFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

furnish the proof of source for the purchase transactions. Thus, the entire transactions are against human probability. Also considering the findings of the Investigation Wing, inquiries conducted in the case of assessee, brokers, operators and the entry providers and the nature of transaction entered into by the assessee the LTCG

M/S Gurukrupa Developers, Godhra vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Vadodara

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed and we direct the A

ITA 1957/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

For Appellant: SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271

factual position with the books of accounts and projections and bring the evidence to unearth the undisclosed income. Neither the A.O. nor the investigation wing linked the cost of profit or cost of asset to the entries in the books of accounts or to the sales conducted by the assessee

ACIT 4 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kaishar Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 5526/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Acit, M/S Kiashar Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Cir- 4(2)(2), Pandya House, 10, Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, Navjeevan Wadi, Dhobi Talao, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400003 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaack1477A (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Sachchidanand Dube (Dr) Assessee By : Ms. Vasanti B. Patel (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 09/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2020

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti B. Patel (AR)For Respondent: Shri Sachchidanand Dube (DR)
Section 133Section 143

purchases and AO shall not bother about gross profit.” 2. The information was generated by Maharashtra Sales Tax Department and received through the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department. As such, the case squarely falls under the exception 10(e) of Circular no. 03/2018 dated 11.07.2018 and amendment thereto

M/S. Blue Lotus Designers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(4), Kolkata

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 941/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Blue Lotus Designers V/S. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., 6/1C, Pranath Ward-7(4), Aayakar Chowdhury Lane, Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 002 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaecb 9302 R] Kolkata-700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D. Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit, Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-11-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 08-01-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16 Kolkata’S Order Dated 27.02.2017 Passed In Case No.755/Cit(A)-16/Kol/2015-16/W-7(4) Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

same. This would be apparent from the observations of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order to the following effect:- ''Investigation made by the Investigation Wing of the department clearly showed that this was nothing but a sham transaction of accommodation entry. The assessee was asked to explain ... been duly considered and found not acceptable. This entry remains unexplained in the hands of the assessee as has been arrived by the Investigation wing of the department. As such entries of Rs.55,50,000/- received by the assessee are treated as an unexplained cash credit in the hands

Narendra Kumar Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 38(3), New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1509/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

For Appellant: Sh. R.K. Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 68

manipulations. 4.That the findings and allegations made by the Ld. CIT(A)/ AO by relying on the outcome of alleged investigations made by the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department in Kolkata and observation of NSE/SEBI/SIT are based on surmises conjectures and imagination without any live link or involvement ... grossly erred in .law in holding that the assessee's name appeared in the list of beneficiaries investigated by the Kolkata Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department and inferences drawn against the assessee are based on surmises, conjectures and unsubstantiated allegations. Thus, the additions made based on no evidence

Narender Aggarwal (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 39(4), New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1508/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

For Appellant: Sh. R.K. Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 68

manipulations. 4.That the findings and allegations made by the Ld. CIT(A)/ AO by relying on the outcome of alleged investigations made by the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department in Kolkata and observation of NSE/SEBI/SIT are based on surmises conjectures and imagination without any live link or involvement ... grossly erred in .law in holding that the assessee's name appeared in the list of beneficiaries investigated by the Kolkata Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department and inferences drawn against the assessee are based on surmises, conjectures and unsubstantiated allegations. Thus, the additions made based on no evidence

M/S Shree Silica Product Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1418/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jan 2020AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Sh. Dileep Shivpuri (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. K. C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 147Section 148Section 68

facts of the case are that a search and survey action was carried out on Sh. Surendra Kumar Jain and his group by Investigation Wing, New Delhi on 14.09.2010 wherein various incriminating documents were found and seized which shows that he was engaged in providing accommodation entry the various concern ... submitted by the Id AR that a perusal of the reasons recorded by the AO would show that he had received information from the Investigation Wing of Delhi in the following manner: "As intimated by the DGIT (Inv.) the assessee M/ s Shree Silica Products Pvt. Itd. has also obtained

Sanjay Kaul, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-24(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1593/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69CSection 70

penny stock companies. The shares in which the assessee has claimed to have made a deal, are identified as Penny Shares by the investigation wing of the department because rates of these shares are not based on business results of the companies but same are fluctuated by insider's trading ... other factors behind investment in companies not having worth proportionate to investment. According to him, evidences gathered during the course of search by the Investigation Wing, particularly in relation to the shares transacted by the assessee, clearly shows that large number of persons have availed bogus long-term capital gain

Goel Wax (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-11(4), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2075/DEL/2018[2008-809]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2020AY 2008-809

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

conducted at the office premises of Sh. Tarun Goyal, CA at 13/34, WEA Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi by the Investigation Wing on 15.09.2008. It was revealed that Sh. Tarun Goyal had created a number of private limited companies and firms for providing accommodation entries. The Directors ... during the financial year 2007-08 relevant to assessment year 2008-09 received various amounts. In view of the reports received from the Investigation Wing, AO observed that the assesse company has not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the assessment year under consideration