“investigation wing”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 14712,584 judgments

The decision most relied on for investigation wing is PCIT v. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. (396 ITR 5), cited in 272 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on investigation wing

PCIT v. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd.

396 ITR 5 · 2017 · High Court

272

citing judgments

Reassessment based solely on information from the Investigation Wing, without the Assessing Officer conducting further inquiry or demonstrating an independent application of mind, is unjustified and invalid.

109 TTJ 700 (Del) SMC Share Brokers Ltd. v. DCIT

293 ITR 43 · 2007 · High Court

264

citing judgments

Where an assessment order is merely a copy-paste of observations from an investigation wing's appraisal report without independent verification, it is not a valid basis for making additions to income.

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

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.

ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur

224 ITR 362 · 1997 · Supreme Court

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

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

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.

Judgments citing investigation wing

Vivek Agarwal, Tinsukia vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Tinsukia

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 204/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in all the three matters and has challenged the imposition of penalty in ITA No. 227 & 228/Gty/2024. He has also challenged the treatment of LTCG as bogus in the case of ITA No. 204/Gty/2018. For the A.Y. 2014-15 (ITA No. 204/Gty/2018) the assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal which deserve to be extracted for reference:

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

concerns the Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) claimed on account of certain penny stocks which were under adverse notice by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department. The LTCG claimed was disallowed by treating it as bogus and thereafter penalty under Section ... assessee has challenged the same. 3. Before us, the Ld. AR averred that the Ld. AO merely went by information received from the Investigation Wing and disregarded the documents in possession of the assessee regarding the impugned transactions. The Ld. AR also mentioned that since the assessee had relocated

Hanumant Ingots Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur

Accordingly the same is also allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 347/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 346 & 347/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Surakshit Real Estate Ltd. (PAN: AANCS3044G), it is found that the assessee company received Rs. 1,21,66,524/- from the said company. The investigation wing has analyzed bank account of M/s Surakshit Real Estate Ltd. and found that (i) The company is a shell entity having no real business

Hanumant Ingots Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur

Accordingly the same is also allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 346/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 346 & 347/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Dipak Raheja, Raipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 344/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.344/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dipak Raheja 15/191, Near Agrasen Bhawan, Jawahar Nagar, Ravigram, S.O- Raipur Pan: Ahxpr1047E ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 68

mushrooming growth of professional entry operators in Kolkata who provide accommodation entry for share application money/loans for a commission. That the Income Tax Department, Investigation Wing, Kolkata had also made search and enquiry and had come up with a detailed investigation report regarding tax evasion committed through such modus-oparandi

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Faridkot

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections

ITA 993/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

basis that purchases are duly supported by bills and all the payments were made by account payee cheques by overlooking findings of the Investigation Wing in the case of Shri Kulwant Singh Yadav, who was running shroff business and he in his statement on oath stated that he issue acknowledgment ... independent satisfaction. He has simply relied upon the information passed on to him by the AO, Abohar and relying on the report of the investigation wing, he has proceeded to reopen the assessment without any independent satisfaction or findings that there has been any escapement of income. Respectfully, following

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Faridkot

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

ITA 992/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Madhav Copper Ltd., Bhavnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(8), Bhavnagar

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three by the assessee, stand dismissed

ITA 276/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Adv., and Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR, and Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

business. 3. In the assessment year 2018–19, the case was reopened under section 147 of the Act based on information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department, indicating that the assessee had entered into transactions with accommodation entry providers, including M/s. RCI Industries and Technologies Ltd. and others ... addition made by the AO towards alleged non-genuine purchases from certain flagged entities, based on third-party information and report from the Investigation Wing. The AO rejected the books of account under section 145(3) and applied a GP rate of 12.5%, resulting in substantial additions

Madhav Copper Ltd., Bhavnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(8), Bhavnagar

ITA 275/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: (Responent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(8), Bhavnagar vs. Madhav Copper Limited, Bhavnagar

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three by the assessee, stand dismissed

ITA 256/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Adv., and Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR, and Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(8), Bhavnagar vs. Madhav Copper Limited, Bhavnagar

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three by the assessee, stand dismissed

ITA 254/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Adv., and Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR, and Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad vs. Rohan Agarwal, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5624/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royacit Vs. Rohan Agarwal Room No. 201, Cgo-1 Kd-42, Kavi Nagar 2Nd Floor, Near Purani Ghaziabad Hapur Chungi, Up – 201001 Ghaziabad, Up- 201002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aiupa3170F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Rai, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr

Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 69A

without considering the fact that M/s.CCL International Limited was one of the identified penny stock company as established by the Investigation Wing of the Department which was used for providing accommodation entry and creation of bogus capital gains exempt u/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. On facts ... name of the assessee was flagged as a person who had traded in Penny Stock Scrip of M/s CCL International Limited by the Investigation Wing of the Department. Thus, the assessment was re-opened by issuing of notice u/s 148 on 30.03.2021. In response to the notice

Brijesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

ITA 4064/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 156Section 69A

Central Range, the ld. JCIT is involved in the search assessment proceedings right from the time of receipt of appraisal report from the Investigation Wing and is involved with the Ld. AO from time to time while issuing various questionnaires to the assessee. The Id. JCIT in Central Range also ... JCIT is involved with the search assessment proceedings right from the time of receipt of appraisal report from the Investigation Wing, still, the ld. JCIT, while granting the approval u/s 153D of the Act has to independently apply his mind dehors the conclusions drawn either by the Investigation Wing

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. A & D Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result we upheld the decision of the Ld

ITA 1729/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

satisfaction, which is absent from the reasons recorded by the AO in this case. It is also settled law that mere information from the Investigation Wing. unverified by the AO, cannot form the basis of bonafide belief of the AO. 4.1.7 As regards reopening of assessment

Rishi Agarwal, Guwahati vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Guwahati

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

ITA 266/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

wherein it has been held that the disallowance cannot made on the basis of the third party information gathered by investigation wing of the department, which have not been independently subjected to further verification by the AO and thus, no material was brought on record to corroborate the statement

Dinessh Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward4(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1393/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Shivangi Chopra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

earn long term capital gains. In the present case, reopening under section 147 has been done without linking information received from Investigation Wing of Department to actual facts in the appellant's case. 2. Legal position in this regard- 2.1 In this regard, provisions of section 147 are reproduced hereunder ... Commissioner of Income-tax (166 taxmann.com 72)-Delhi High Court (copy annexed as Annexure-17) In this case, the Assessing Officer received information from Investigation Wing that the assessee deposited substantial amount of cash in different bank accounts. The Assessing Officer based on said information, formed reason to believe that

Dharmdeep Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1) (Previously Circle-1(1)(2)), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 398/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 68

DDIT (Inv)-6(3), Mumbai wherein it is informed that assessee have made transactions making client code modifications. Relying on the report of the Investigation Wing, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.5,45,43,555/- u/s 68 of the Act, which the Ld. CIT(A) duly confirmed. 4. Aggrieved

Vikram Kasera, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 61, Kolkata

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

ITA 268/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No. 268/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Vikram Kasera,………………………………..……Appellant 7B, Deodar Street, Kolkata-700019 [Pan:Aftpk7200E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,……..Respondent Circle-61, Kolkata, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Bamboo Villa, Kolkata-700014 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 24, 2025 O R D E R

Section 132Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

bogus long-term capital gain. Notice under section 148 for AY 2017-18 was issued on 12.04.2021 on the basis of information received from investigation Wing, DDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(1), Ahmedabad. Incriminating data in the form of digital data, loose papers, diaries etc. were found and seized during action

ITO-41(1)(2), Mumbai, Bandra East vs. Jayshree Sanjiv Haria, Mumbai

ITA 2724/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Ms. Hatel GadaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia

Section 250Section 69A

raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and in law and ignored the findings of the Investigation Wing and the Assessing Officer, which clearly established that Cllent Code Modification (CCMs) were systematically used to shift profits/losses and were mot mere correction ... Rs.1,69,730/- made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ignoring the conclusive findings of the Assessing Officer and the Investigation Wing that the Client Code Modifications (CCMs) were systematically executed to facilitate shifting of profits and losses and were not genuine corrections of punching errors

Shri Dilip J. Thakkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on merits

ITA 6268/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Shri Dilip J. Thakkar Dcit, Central Circle-6(4), 111A Currimji Building, Vs Kautilya Bhawan, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Mumbai – 400023. East, [Pan No. Aacpt9000H] Mumbai – 400051. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 153ASection 254(1)

settled abroad and are citizens of UK and Canada. There is no dispute of these facts. 25. From the ‘Base Note’ forwarded by the Investigation wing, it has been informed that in ChagganlalSuchak Family Trust which had bank accounts in HSBC Bank, Geneva, Mr. Dilip Thakkar and his wife

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot vs. Chetan Nandlal Sangani, Rajkot

In the result, Revenue’s appeal ITA No

ITA 249/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 248 & 249/Rjt/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2019-20) Deputy Commissioner Of Chetan Nandlal Sangani Income Tax, Central Circle– Vs. 309, Shalin Complex, 2, Madhavi Chowk, Soni Rajkot, “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Bazar, Rajkot-360 001 Floor, Mg Road, Rajko-360 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amvps 5788 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

basis of unexplained sales found from EmmEss- Gold software maintained by V.K. Group during the course of survey action carried out by the investigation wing. [Note: For A.Y. 2019-20, in ITA No.249/RJT/2022 the addition is at Rs.2,62,10,100/-] 2. On the facts and in the circumstances ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, has duly investigated and applied his mind on the report of the DDIT, Investigation wing and after satisfying himself made assessment on the basis of cogent material and relevant evidence on record. 4.On the facts and in the circumstances