“investigation wing”

ACIT-18(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.D.N.H.Spinners Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

lacs from Jasoda Export, ` 10 lacs from Mohit International and ` 15 lacs from Ryan International. The said fact came to light when the investigation wing conducted a search on Pravin Kumar Jain & Associates. The AO in order to verify the genuineness of the loans raised from these parties issued notice ... informed him that various unsecured loans taken by the assessee from seven entities controlled by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain who has admitted before the Investigation wing in the course of search proceedings that he and his associated concerns were providing accommodation entries. Shri Dinesh Jain, director of the assessee company

M/S.Geetanjali Space Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT CC-1(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

furnished by the said person in relation to the investment made by M/s. GSD Trading and Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. We observe that investigation wing of the department conducted a survey operation on M/s. GSD Trading and Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. and during the course of such survey a detailed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-29(1), Mumbai vs. Balkrishna R. Chavan, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Bleacit – 29(1) V. Shri Balakrishna R. Chavan Room No. 108, C-10 A-16, Trupti, Mahatma Phule Road, Pratyakshkar Bhavan Mulund (E), Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 081 Bandra(E), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aacpc 9776 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.107/Mum/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No.4905/Mum/2017 (A.Y: 2007-08) Shri Balakrishna R. Chavan Acit – 29(1) V. A-16, Trupti, Room No. 108, C-10, Mahatma Phule Road, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Mulund (E), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 081 Bandra(E), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aacpc 9776 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

strong case on merit. It is evident from the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has primarily relied upon certain information received from the Investigation Wing, which contained statement recorded from the Directors/promoters of Hiranandani Group admitting receipt of on money. It is also evident from the assessment order itself

Arun Ravindranath Sawhney, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7192/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2007-08) Arun Ravindranath Sawhney The Dy. Commissioner Of 502, Daisylea Apartment, 17- Income Tax, Central Circle A Mount Pleasant Road, 3(4), Old Acit Central Vs. Mumbai-400 006 Circle 24& 26 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aafps4688F

connection with the same account. I had admitted that the said one account belonged to me only. My explanation was accepted by the investigating wing and thereafter I have paid the income tax along with interest on the said peak balance. I respectfully further submit that I do not have ... respect to taxable income lying in foreign account in the original return of income and chose to come clean only when confronted by the investigation wing. Under the circumstances, I have no hesitation in confirming the action of AO in levying penalty in principle. However, AO is directed to recalculate

DCIT Cen Cir 8(4), Mumbai vs. Peccadily Estate P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () - 2010-11 - 2009-10 - 2011-12

director as well as the employees made a general statement about receipt of on-money with reference to a question posed by the Investigation wing without any reference to particular seized material found as a result of search. Similarly, the AO has taken circumstantial evidence of cash and unexplained jewellery

Uni Design Jewellery India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) बिाम/ Uni Design Jewellery India Dcit-Central Circle 1(2) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Plot No. 3, V. Uni Design House, Cepz Wicel, Opp. Seepz Main Gate, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacu3940J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Rakesh Mohan Revenue By: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 For Assessment Year(S) 2011-12 & 2012- 13 Respectively, Are Directed Against Separate Appellate Order(S) Both Dated 18.12.2017 In Appeal Number(S) Cit(A)-47/Ap.11663/16-17 & Cit(A)-47/Ap.11664/16-17 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 31.10.2016 Passed By

drawn to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court wherein the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 was done based on information received from Investigation Wing in the case of Avirat Star Home Venture Private Limited v. ITO reported in (2019) 411 ITR 321(Bom.), wherein Hon’ble Bombay High ... mind we may revisit the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. In the reasons the Assessing Officer referred to the report of the investigation wing in which it was found that one company namely Finelink Suppliers Private Limited through its current account in Indusind Bank between the specified period

Uni Design Jewellery India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) बिाम/ Uni Design Jewellery India Dcit-Central Circle 1(2) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Plot No. 3, V. Uni Design House, Cepz Wicel, Opp. Seepz Main Gate, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacu3940J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Rakesh Mohan Revenue By: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 For Assessment Year(S) 2011-12 & 2012- 13 Respectively, Are Directed Against Separate Appellate Order(S) Both Dated 18.12.2017 In Appeal Number(S) Cit(A)-47/Ap.11663/16-17 & Cit(A)-47/Ap.11664/16-17 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 31.10.2016 Passed By

drawn to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court wherein the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 was done based on information received from Investigation Wing in the case of Avirat Star Home Venture Private Limited v. ITO reported in (2019) 411 ITR 321(Bom.), wherein Hon’ble Bombay High ... mind we may revisit the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. In the reasons the Assessing Officer referred to the report of the investigation wing in which it was found that one company namely Finelink Suppliers Private Limited through its current account in Indusind Bank between the specified period

Mukesh B. Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(3)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshshri Mukesh B Sharma Income Tax Officer-11(3)(2) Room No. 428, 4Th Floor Bldg. No. F, C202, Akshay Mittal Indl. Estate, 1St Floor Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Andheri Kurla Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 Pan – Aahps1995D Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Respondent By: Shri D.G. Pansari Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2019 O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, Am The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30-07- 2018 Passed By Ld Cit(A)-36, Mumbai & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Though The Assessee Had Raised Various Grounds Of Appeal, We Find That The Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld Cita Was Justified In Upholding The Action Of The Ld Ao In Treating The Sale Consideration Of Shares Of Rs 7,88,77,854/- As Bogus & Consequentially Denying The Exemption Claimed By The Assessee U/S 10(38) Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. The Interconnected Issue Involved Therein Is As To Whether The Ld Cita Was Justified In Confirming The Addition Made U/S 69C Of The Act In The Sum Of Rs.39,43,893/- Towards Commission On Sale Proceeds Of Shares In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

grounds:- a) By placing reliance on the copies of statements of various persons recoded during the course of survey proceedings carried out by Kolkata Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department b) On the basis of analysis of price movements of the scrip of GIFL. c) On the basis of analysis ... lacs 76 lacs 5 Shri Mukesh B. Sharma 6.3. We find that the ld AO had placed reliance on certain statements recorded by the Investigation wing of Kolkata Income Tax Department during some survey proceedings conducted in third party cases. We find that in none of those statements, the name

Smt.Geeta Khare, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Kalyan

In the result, we see no merit in this Appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshsmt. Geeta Khare A C I T, Circle – 3 4Th Floor, Siddhivinayak Arcade Kalyan Vs. Mahatma Phule Road Dombivali (W), Mumbai 421202 Pan – Ahopk7823N Appellant Respondent Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre (Huf) Income Tax Officer 4(4) B-5, Sai Garden Chs Ashar It Park Near Dhuri Service Centre Vs. Road No. 16Z, Midc Dewanman, Vasai (W) Thane (W) 400061 Mumbai 401202 Pan – Aauhs1747L Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Respondent By: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2019 O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, Am These Appeals Filed By The Assessees Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Cit(A)-3, Nashik Dated 02.04.2018 & Cit(A)-3, Thane Dated 01.11.2017 Respectively & They Relates To The Assessment Year 2014-15. As Identical Issues Smt. Geeta Khare & Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre Are Involved In Both The Appeals, They Are Taken Up Together & Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

grounds:- a) By placing reliance on the copies of statements of various persons recorded during the course of survey proceedings carried out by Kolkata Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department b) By holding that the entire transactions of purchase and sale of shares were pre- arranged by the assessee with ... same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. We find that the ld AO had placed reliance on certain statements recorded by the Investigation wing of Kolkata Income Tax Department during some survey proceedings conducted in third party cases. We find that in none of those statements, the name