“investigation wing”

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Randeep Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2004-05 Income Tax Officer, Ward - Vs. M/S. Randeep Investment 15(2), New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., 202, Mohan Place, Local Shopping Complex, C- Block, Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi Gir/Pan :Aaccr0988D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Date Of Hearing 11.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 16.08.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01/01/2014 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xviii, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2004-05 Raising The Following Grounds: I. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 45,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act Ignoring The Fact That As Per The Information Received From The Investigation Wing Of The Department, The Said Entities Are 2 Ay: 2004-05 Doing No Business Except To Provide Accommodation Entries On Commission Basis. Ii. The Appellant Craves To Be Allowed To Add Any Fresh Grounds Of Appeal And/Or Delete Or Amend Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal.

made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act ignoring the fact that as per the information received from the Investigation Wing of the department, the said entities are 2 AY: 2004-05 doing no business except to provide accommodation entries on commission basis. ii. The appellant

ACIT, Karnal vs. Sh. Subhash Chander Sudha, Kurukshetra

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Sh. Subhash Chander Income Tax, Central Circle, Sudha, S/O- Late S.H. Karnal Desraj, H.No. 374, Sector- 13, Kurukshetra Gir/Pan :Aknps6472M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Renuka Jain Gupta, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Sh. Kapil Goel, Advocate & Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.07.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 16.08.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: The Present Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Central), Gurgaon, Dated 06.11.2012, Raising Grounds, Which Were Revised On 31.12.2014. The Revised Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: I. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Was Right In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 30,00,000/- When The Assessee Had Actually Admitted The Undisclosed Income In His Statement Recorded U/S 132(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 At The Time Of Search & Had Also Made Surrender To That Extent.

allow the appeal of the assessee. As for the letter referred by the assessee, the same being an internal confidential correspondence between AO and Investigation Wing, which has also not been commented in the remand report, I have no reason to take it into cognizance. Assessee succeeds on this ground

DCIT, Rohtak vs. M/S. Kla Food (India) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the C.O. is dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2010-11 Dy.Cit, Rohtak Circle Vs. Kla Foods (India) Ltd. Rohtak 21/3, Ground Floor Geeta Mandir Marg Near Rajinder Nagar New Delhi

documents were produced by the assessee related to share transactions. Thus, CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the findings of the AO and Investigation Wing. 3. The applicant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify, delete and or change any of the grounds on or before the date of hearing

M/S Mkm Finses P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04

independent conclusion that there was escapement of income. It was further stated that the case was reopened only on the basis of 5 Investigation Wing information which suffers with serious debility and lacks definiteness, without describing the basic aspects of alleged transaction and in the absence of the same, whole ... assessee’s counsel. For the sake of clarity, we would like to discuss the reasons for initiation of proceedings u/s. 147 as under:- “The Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department had unearthed a huge money laundering mechanism wherein it was established that bogus accommodation entries were being provided / taken

Rkm Infotech & Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

Bench: In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench ‘F’ New Delhi

Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] because there was information with the A.O received from the Investigation Wing of the department regarding bogus entries of Rs. 85 lakhs and the assessee did not disclose its imports of metal in its books of accounts thus ... addition of Rs. 45 lakhs only. In this scenario, we are inclined to accept the contentions of the assessee that the report of the Investigation Wing was general in nature, vague and non specific about the nature of the alleged transaction and the A.O has accepted the same as gospel

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Meghna Towers Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

appeal filed by Revenue and the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee in cross objection are taken up together. 3. The investigation wing of Income Tax Department intimated the Ld. AO that certain persons were engaged in providing accommodation entries to various persons. The investigation wing recorded the statements ... Finwiz Capital Services P. Ltd. Fussy Finn. Services Pvt. Ltd., Hare Rama Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. Statement of these persons who admitted on oath before investigation wing of Income Tax Department that they had provided the accommodation entries were forwarded to the Ld. AO in which they had categorically admitted that

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Nancy Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, this appeal, filed by Revenue; stands dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N. Mishraay: 2008-09 Ito Vs. Nancy Sales Pvt. Ltd. Ward-13(1), Room No. 219 Up-12, C.R. Building, Pitampura, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 088 Pan Aaccn2492G (Appellant) (Respondent)

have been received from M/s. Thar Steels P. Ltd. entry operator, being operated by Shri Tarun Goyal, an entry operator identified by the Investigation Wing of the Department. Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that the assessee has failed to establish the physical identity and creditworthiness of concerned ... books of accounts with the help of accommodation entry providers which has been exposed by deep and detailed investigation carried out by the Investigation Wing of the Department. Moreover, the facts in the present case are distinguishable from the above cited case in so far as that the assesee could

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Mahamaya General Finance Com. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N. Mishraa.Y. : 2009-10 Dcit, Central Circle-14, M/S Mahamaya General Finance New Delhi Vs. Com. Ltd., Room No. 320, 3Rd Floor, 4/4, A, Stock Exchange E-2, Jhandewalan Extn., Building, Ara Centre, New Delhi Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi – 110 002 (Pan: Aaacm0004D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

relevant paras of the impugned order are reproduced as under:- 5 “I have considered the entire facts and arguments of Ld AR. Neither the Investigation Wing nor the Assessing Officer has correlated any seized document with the surrender of unaccounted receipt. At the time of putting question leading to surrender ... income some seized document was referred, namely, B-2 to B-27. Exact incriminating or nature of document was never confronted either by Investigation Wing or the Assessing Officer to Sh. Balwant Singh. Only seized document discussed by the Assessing Officer is signed blank letter head of contractor in support

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Pyramid Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal. & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

declaring a total income ofRs.13,830/- A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the IT. Act, 1961 was conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Department on 29.1.2009 in the case of M/s Saamag Group of cases. The assessee’s business premises situated at B-67, Sarita Vihar

M/S. Central Gum & Chemicals Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Central Gum & Chemicals Vs. Dcit, Central –Iii, New Ltd., 308, Arunachal Building Delhi 19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Gir/Pan :Aaccc4405A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. V. Raja Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 26.07.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 06/11/2013 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xxxiii, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2008-09 Raising Following Grounds: “That The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143 (3) Of The Act On 27.12.2010 Which Is Bad Both On Facts & In Law; 2) That The Authorities Below Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Making An Addition Of Rs.24,17,66,963/- U/S 68 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Without Appreciating The Fact

Assessing Officer 4 AY: 2008-09 observed that the assessee company was a conduit entity operated by Sh. S.K. Gupta, in which case, the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department had carried out an extensive survey, wherein he admitted of using the assessee company for providing accommodation entry ... same day/within few days to various parties from the accounts of the company controlled by him. As per enquiries carried out by the Investigation wing the assessee was found to have been using the bank accounts opened in different banks to route the entries through two to four accounts

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sng Developers Ltd., New Delhi

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

brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 25/11/2003, declaring income of Rs. 76,340/-. Subsequently, on receipt of information from the Investigation Wing that the assessee had taken accommodation entries worth Rs. 95,65,510/- from various parties, a list of which was supplied to the Assessing ... Officer by the Investigation Wing, the Assessing Officer (‘AO') issued notice under section 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) on 31/3/2010. The copy of reasons for reopening the case were duly communicated to the assessee 10/09/2010 and preliminary objections to the reopening proceedings were rejected