“investigation wing”

DCIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Kolar Paper Mills Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.1978/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) Dy. Commissioner Of V/S. M/S. Kolar Paper Mills Income Tax, Circle बिाम Ltd. 2(1)(1), Mumbai A 404, Twin Tower Chs Ltd, Room No. 575, 5Th Floor, Lokhandwala, 2Nd Cross Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Near, Apna Ghar Andheri Road, Mumbai 400020 West, Mumbai 400053 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Aadck8381N Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Ashok Majetia, Ca Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: 26.08.2025 स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 23.12.2024 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal.

genuine in nature. it is also found from the assessment order that the AO merely relied on information of Investigation Wing. The AO did not bring out on record that donation amount paid by appellant were returned back by M/s. Aadhar Foundation to it in the form of cash ... Taxmann.com 64 (SC) wherein it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of third-party information gathered by the Investigation Wing of the Department. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: "Thus, the entire disallowance in this case is based on third party information

Income Tax Officer 22(3)(6), Mumbai vs. Sachin Durgesh Chheda, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Assessing officer made erred in making addition of Rs.7,88,133/- on the basis of presumption of Investigation wing of Income tax department & SEBI investigation enquiry without considering our documents and arguments filed via reply to show cause notice as well as via videoconferencing

Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 26(1)(7), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta, Ito Ward 26(1)(7), A-16, Ajanta Apartment, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bkc, Murar Road, Mulund West, Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai-400080. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aqfps 6009 N Appellant Respondent

conjecture or suspicion. The material before the AO in this case — a contemporaneous communication from the a contemporaneous communication from the Investigation Wing coupled with a sworn statement recorded under Investigation Wing coupled with a sworn statement recorded under Investigation Wing coupled with a sworn statement recorded under section ... information from the case. The record shows (a) receipt of information from the case. The record shows (a) receipt of information from the Investigation Wing; (b) verification of bank entries; and (c) Investigation Wing; (b) verification of bank entries; and (c) Investigation Wing; (b) verification of bank entries

Mr. Rohit Vallabhdas Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 32(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Rohit Vallabhdas Shah Income Tax Officer, B-303, Dwarka Apartment Ward 32(3)(2), Vs. Daulat Nagar, Borivali, Mumbai Mumbai – 400066 (Pan: Accps2392B) (Assessee) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Gunjan Kakkad, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit-32, Mumbai, Vide Order Dated 25.03.2019 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer, Ward-32(3)(2), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 17.06.2016 For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order By Exercising Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act"). 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Failed To Appreciate That The View Of The Assessing Officer Could Have Been Substituted In Exercise Of Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The View Taken By The Assessing Officer Was A Plausible View & Thus, The Commissioner Has Erred In Invoking The Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act. 4. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Commissioner Could Not Have Set Aside The Assessment Order.

matter by reopening the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 dated 14.08.2015. According to the reasons to believe recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer, Investigation Wing of the Department had carried out detailed investigation with respect to information received from Sales Tax Department that certain entities are involved in business

Goodluck Metal Corporation, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Goodluck Metal Corporation, Assessing Officer Circle 19(1), 98, Khetwadi Main Road, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400 004. Vs. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaafg 1441 R Appellant Respondent

relied on the fact that Shri Bhanwarlal Jain has retracted the fact that Shri Bhanwarlal Jain has retracted the statement given to the investigation wing. But, since the statement given to the investigation wing. But, since the statement given to the investigation wing. But, since the investigation has been carried ... being view of the A.O that considering the detailed examination being view of the A.O that considering the detailed examination being conducted by the investigation wing, evidence unearthed in the conducted by the investigation wing, evidence unearthed in the conducted by the investigation wing, evidence unearthed in the course

ITO 19.3.1, Mumbai vs. Salem Steel Industries, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

parties to the tune of Rs. 37,35,984/- in this regard. The AO recorded a detailed finings based on the report of the Investigation Wing with regard to the purchases made from these two parties who are paper companies floated by Shri Bhanwarlal Jain. Accordingly, the AO treated ... treated the purchases of Rs. 37,35,984/- made from two parties, as bogus on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department which stated that these concerns were paper concerns and managed and controlled by Bhanwarlal Group for providing bogus accommodation entries on commission basis

Phoenix Commodities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 3(2)(3), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan

In the result, grounds of appeal of

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

profit of total turnover. The submission of assessee was not accepted by assessing officer. The assessing officer recorded certain points of report of Investigation Wing on page no. 6 to 13 of his order. The assessing officer was of the view that the assessee used penny stock scrips for providing ... order of ld. CIT(A). The assessee besides other contention submitted that assessing officer blindly relied upon information received from Investigation Wing as true. All the clients of assessee have complied KYC requirement and none of the clients are fake. The assessing officer has not made any enquiry from

Phoenix Commodities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal of

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

profit of total turnover. The submission of assessee was not accepted by assessing officer. The assessing officer recorded certain points of report of Investigation Wing on page no. 6 to 13 of his order. The assessing officer was of the view that the assessee used penny stock scrips for providing ... order of ld. CIT(A). The assessee besides other contention submitted that assessing officer blindly relied upon information received from Investigation Wing as true. All the clients of assessee have complied KYC requirement and none of the clients are fake. The assessing officer has not made any enquiry from

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed on merits the various legal contentions in the C

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

compliance, the assessee company made its submission vide letter dated 27.11.2019 wherein the assessee company has mainly relied on its submission made before the Investigation Wing of Ahmedabad during the enquiry proceedings, These facts and submission of the assessee company were already distinguished by the Investigation Wing. Ahmedabad during ... pertinent mention that all the contention/facts of the assessee before the 5 ITA No. 2242 & C.O. 124/Mum/2025 Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt. Ltd. Investigation Wing were countered before Snit. Mayaben V. Parmar. The assessee was asked to submit the receipts or any other evidences for the labour payments

ITO, Mumbai vs. Shemon Jewels, Mumbai

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

ignoring the fact that action of Assessing officer was based on the information & discreet report of the DGIT (Investigation Wing) Mumbai, who has proved beyond doubt post search and seizure operations with the evidences & recorded statements of Mr. Bhanwarlal Jain that M/s Prime Star, was one of the paper company ... purchases and a 100% addition of impugned purchases was made by the Ld. AO after considering the response of assessee and discussing report of investigation wing along with modus operandi adopted in such performance of transactions and rejected books of the assessee u/s 145(3) of the Act. Assessee preferred

Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Shemon Jewels, Mumbai

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

ignoring the fact that action of Assessing officer was based on the information & discreet report of the DGIT (Investigation Wing) Mumbai, who has proved beyond doubt post search and seizure operations with the evidences & recorded statements of Mr. Bhanwarlal Jain that M/s Prime Star, was one of the paper company ... purchases and a 100% addition of impugned purchases was made by the Ld. AO after considering the response of assessee and discussing report of investigation wing along with modus operandi adopted in such performance of transactions and rejected books of the assessee u/s 145(3) of the Act. Assessee preferred

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. Smt. Sakhiben Patel, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Deputy Commissioner Of V/S. Smt. Sakhiben Patel, Income Tax, Central Circle बनाम 601, 6Th Floor, Petit Towers, –7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th August Kranti Marg, Kemps Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Corner, Mumbai – 400 036, Road, Mumbai - 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpp1508R Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रत्याक्षेपसं/C.O. No.71/Mum/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1595/Mum/2019) (A.Y. 2012-13) Smt. Sakhiben Patel, V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of 601, 6Th Floor, Petit Towers, बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle –7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th August Kranti Marg, Kemps Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Corner, Mumbai – 400 036, Road, Mumbai - 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpp1508R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

basis of which assessee made admission under sections 132(4) and 131(1A), assessee is at liberty to report to higher authorities in investigation wing or even to CBDT. Whether since assessee had no report to higher authorities in respect of coercion and pressure of eleven months, theory of coercion

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. Smt. Sakhiben Patel, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Deputy Commissioner Of V/S. Smt. Sakhiben Patel, Income Tax, Central Circle बनाम 601, 6Th Floor, Petit Towers, –7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th August Kranti Marg, Kemps Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Corner, Mumbai – 400 036, Road, Mumbai - 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpp1508R Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रत्याक्षेपसं/C.O. No.71/Mum/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1595/Mum/2019) (A.Y. 2012-13) Smt. Sakhiben Patel, V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of 601, 6Th Floor, Petit Towers, बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle –7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th August Kranti Marg, Kemps Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Corner, Mumbai – 400 036, Road, Mumbai - 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpp1508R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

basis of which assessee made admission under sections 132(4) and 131(1A), assessee is at liberty to report to higher authorities in investigation wing or even to CBDT. Whether since assessee had no report to higher authorities in respect of coercion and pressure of eleven months, theory of coercion