“investigation wing”

DCIT 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Panchavati Valves & Flanges P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bledcit, Circle – 13(1)(2), 2Nd Floor, V. M/S Panchavati Valves & Flanges Pvt. Ltd.; Room No.218, Sumit Samarth Arcade, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, B-Wing, 503-A & B, 5Th Floor, Mumbai-400 020 Behind Jain Mandir, Aarey Road, Goregaon (W) Mumbai – 400062

profit at 12.5% observed as under: - 12. It is an undisputed fact that the assessing officer identified the party based on information received from Investigation Wing. The AO has issued notice u/s 133(6) but was returned unserved. However, as far as the evidence submitted by the appellant is also

DCIT 12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Diagold Designs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 5621/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Dy. Cit 12(2)(1), Vs. M/S Diagold Designs Ltd., Room No. 223, 2Nd Floor, R-1, Cama Industrial Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Walbhat Road, Mumbai - 400020 Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400063 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcd3716A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आिकर अपील सं./Co No. 148/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Diagold Designs Ltd., Vs. The Dy. Cit 12(2)(1), R-1, Cama Industrial Estate, Room No. 223, 2Nd Floor, Walbhat Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400063 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcd3716A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

treated these purchases as non genuine since assessee could not produce these parties for verification. The AO had also noted that information from investigation wing that these parties belonging to Sh. Bhanwarlal Jain group used to give bogus bills. The AO appears to have received information in this case from ... investigating wing. It is clear that this information was about the bogus sales made and 5 ITA No. 5621/MUM/2016 & CO No. 148/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 accommodation entry given by one Sh. Bhanwar Lal Jain. The A.O. seems to have received this information in general and not specifically

Fancy Wear, Kharghar vs. ITO 24(3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. & Sandeep Gosain,J.M. आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././Ita No.1596/Mum/2016,िन आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िन िनधा"रण वष" िन धा"रण वष" धा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 धा"रण वष" आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././Ita No.1597/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण वष" आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" M/S. Fancy Wear Income Tax Officer 122, Megh Tower, 12Th Floor, Ward-24(3)(1), Now-31(1)(4) Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg, Film City Road Vs. Mumbai. Goregaon-E,Mumbai-400 063. Pan: Aacff 0727 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen-Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Sanjay R. Parikh सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/08/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 20.09.2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)के अ"तग"त आदेश धारा के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य,राजे"" के अनुसार लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार / Per Rajendra,Am: लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार राजे"" के अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 21/01/2016 Of Cit(A)-42, Mumbai The Assessee Is In Appeal For The Above Mentioned Two Assessment Years (Ay.S). The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Readymade-Garments.As The Issues Involved In Both The Years Are,So,We Are Adjudicating Both The Appeals Together.The Details Of Date Of Filing Of Return, Income Declared, Assessed Income, Dates Of Assessment Orders Etc. Can Tabulated As Under :- A.Y. Roi Filed On Income Declared Assessment Dt. Assessed Income 2010-11 14.10.2011 Rs.2,15,171/- 26/03/2014 Rs.5.51Croress 2011-12 29.09.2011 Rs.1,05,187/- 26/03/2014 Rs.4.81 Croress

concerned. 5.1.We find that in the case under consideration,the AO had issued notice u/s.147 of the Act from the STD and the investigation wing of the department,that the assessee had purchased goods from two of the entities who were considered hawala-dealers by the STD,that the names

Mody Interiors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri R C Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

business of providing bills without actual delivery of goods and thus there was escapement of income from assessment. This information received from the Investigation wing construed ‘tangible material’ for the purpose of reopening the assessment. Hence reopening of the assessment by the AO and upheld

Asst CIT 17(1), Mumbai vs. Golani Brothers, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 3821/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit -17(1), M/S Golani Brothers R. No. 117, 1St Floor, बिधम/ 303, Dlamal Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 29 New Marine Lines, Vs. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aacfg5348R (अपीलाथी/Revenue) (प्रत्यथी / Assessee) :

That certain inquiry proceedings u/s. 131 of the ‘Act’ were conducted in the case of the assessee firm by the investigation wing of the department. That on the basis of various documents that were impounded during the course of the proceedings u/s. 131, it transpired that the assessee firm

DCIT Cen Cir 2(3), Mumbai vs. Sanjay Chemical India P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 3721 & 3722/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Dcit Central Circle-2(3), M/S Sanjay Chemical India R. No. 804, 8Th Floor, 5Th Floor, Kanmoor, House बिधम/ Old Cgo Building, M.K. Condominium, 281/287 Vs. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Narsi Natha Street Mumbai-400009 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aafcs2929E (अपीलाथी/Revenue) (प्रत्यथी / Assessee) :

being of the considered view that in the backdrop of the details gathered during the course of the survey proceedings from the investigation wing of the department and the declarations filed by the aforesaid suppliers under consideration with the Sales tax department, Mumbai, wherein the said respective parties had categorically

Pinaki Dineshkumar Panani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 25(3), Mumbai

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Ravish Soodआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1167/Mum/2017, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, -25(3) Smt. Pinaki Dineshkumar Panani Mumbai. 401, Mangal Villa, Tejpal Road, Vs. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400 057. Pan:Aijpp 0802 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar-Dr Assessee By: None सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/08/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 15/09/2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार /Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 23/12/2016,Of Cit(A)-37,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee,An Individual,Filed Her Return Of Income On 19/09/2008,Declaring Income Of Rs.37.27 Lakhs.Initially The Return Was Processed U/S. 143(1) Of The Act.Subsequently,The Assessment Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act,On 16/11/2010,Determining Her Income At Rs.31.80 Lakhs. On Receipt Of Information From Sales Department The Ao Re-Opened The Assessment,Invoking The Provisions Of Section 148 Of The Act. He Finalised The Assessment U/S.143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act On 4/3/16 Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.70.16 Lakhs.

have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that the AO had received information from the investigation wing of STD, Maharashtra that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries, that Shiv Sagar the supplier of the goods was one of the entities

DCIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Alaln Electronics Systems P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Alan Electronic Systems Tax-15(1)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No.517, 5Th Floor, 2Nd A-34, Floor, Crescent Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Industrial Estate, Maharshi Karve Road, Kanjurmarg (East), Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 042 Pan: Aabca 9296N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rahul Hakani, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2017 O R D E R

received from the Sales Tax Department regarding bogus parties with whom the assessee had made purchases. On the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department, Mumbai, it was found that the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills total amounting to Rs.15,21,265/- from

DCIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Alaln Electronics Systems P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Alan Electronic Systems Tax-15(1)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No.517, 5Th Floor, 2Nd A-34, Floor, Crescent Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Industrial Estate, Maharshi Karve Road, Kanjurmarg (East), Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 042 Pan: Aabca 9296N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rahul Hakani, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2017 O R D E R

received from the Sales Tax Department regarding bogus parties with whom the assessee had made purchases. On the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department, Mumbai, it was found that the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills total amounting to Rs.15,21,265/- from

ITO 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rossari Biotech .Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Ito – 15(3)-1, M/S. Rossari Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No.456, 4Th Floor, 201-A & B, Ackruti Corporate Aayakar Bhavan, Park, M.K. Road, Vs. Lbs Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 Next To Ge Gardens, Kanjurmarg (West), Mumbai – 400 078 Pan: Aaecr 4325G (Appellant) (Respondent)

received from the Sales Tax Department regarding bogus parties with whom the assessee had made purchases. On the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department, Mumbai, it was found that the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills total amounting to Rs.2,50,66,604/- from

Poonam Skyline Construction, Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT 12(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2928/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Poonam Skyline Construction Jt. Cit, Range 12(1), 66/B, 3Rd Floor, Podar Chambers, Mumbai बिाम/ Mumbai Samachar Marg, Fort, Vs. Mumbai-400 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfp 4019 R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rahul Sarda प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Saurabhkumar Rai सुनवाई की तारीख / : 01.08.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 15.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 24.2.2016 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-28, Mumbai Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Filed By The Appellant-Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Engaged In The Business Of Development Of Property Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring The Total Income Of Rs.5,01,42,080/-. The Return Was Processed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny.

return was processed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny. 3. On the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department that the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills 2 Poonam Skyline Construction vs. Jt. CIT from the eight parties

Shekasa Engineering Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Shekasa Engineering Co. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-8(2)(1), बनाम/ 02Nd Floor, 182/186, Metal Room No.670, Vs. House, Kalbadevi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Cotton Exchange, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aaacs7426F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Satish Mody Shri V. Justin-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 14/09/2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: आदेश / O R D E R

declared income of `40,68,210/- in its return, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, information was received from the investigation wing that the assessee had claimed certain purchases in its account aggregating `3,55,00,233/- in the F.Y. 2008-09 (Assessment Year

DCIT 12(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bairagra Builders P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) was right in ignoring the findings of the Investigation Wing of the Department that Mr. Praveen Kr. Jain and his group had floated many companies and entities with dummy directors/proprietors, and these companies were providing bogus

DCIT 12(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bairagra Builders P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) was right in ignoring the findings of the Investigation Wing of the Department that Mr. Praveen Kr. Jain and his group had floated many companies and entities with dummy directors/proprietors, and these companies were providing bogus

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M E Infraprojects P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Ramit Kochar, Hon'Ble

issue of notice u/s 148 dated 07.03.2014 for the reason that as per the information received from the investigation wing of the department the assessee entered into transaction with various parties as mentioned in the Assessment Order for purchase of material and these dealers were reflected as hawala dealers ... website of the Sale Tax Department, Investigation Wing, Mumbai, who allegedly provided only accommodation bills. In the course of the re-assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to furnish the details of ledger accounts, copies of bills, invoices, proof of delivery of goods with transportation details rendering of services, bank

DCIT 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Turnkey Electrical Engineers P Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

authorities have not rejected the books of account or the sales of the assessee. The learned DR, on the other hand, argued that the investigation wing of the department made full fledge inquiry. The parties from whom the assessee has shown purchases were hawala dealers. The name of three concerns

Turnkey Electrical Engineers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

authorities have not rejected the books of account or the sales of the assessee. The learned DR, on the other hand, argued that the investigation wing of the department made full fledge inquiry. The parties from whom the assessee has shown purchases were hawala dealers. The name of three concerns