← All Phrases

“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
97
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
90
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
81
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
78
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

DCIT, Circle-I, Ludhiana vs. Findoc Investment Private Limited, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 863/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 863/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Dcit, Vs M/S Findoc Investment Pvt.Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Kartar Bhawan, Ludhiana. Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcf8332L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar & Shri Aditya Kumar, Cas Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Shri Aditya Kumar, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148

Trading' . For the sake of reference, the relevant portion of the Reasons is reproduced herewith. "From the perusal of the information from the Investigation wing uploaded on Insight portal, it is found that In the case of our assessee M/S Findoc Investment Pvt. Ltd. has done transaction in equity/derivative trading ... Profits". The appellant contended that both the jurisdictional assessing officer and the NFAC are unclear and unsure of the information shared by the Investigation Wing. The appellant further alleged that the assessing officer never applied his mind and never verified the details from the financials of the appellant which were

The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Morbi vs. M/S. Kishan Plus Minarals, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue (In ITA No

ITA 124/RJT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.124/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.02/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-20 Acit, Cent.Cir.2 M/S.Kishan Plus Minerals बनाम Rajkot. Jetpar Road, Nr. Pavadiyali Temple, Jasmatgadh Vs. Morbi. Pan : Aaqfk4689P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Counsel राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2025 (Originally Heard Refixed On 05.06.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20/06/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini:

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

circumstances of the case and in law, assessing officer has duly investigated and applied his mind on the report of the DDIT, Investigation wing and after satisfying himself has made the assessment on the basis of cogent material and relevant evidence on record. 5.On the facts and in the circumstances ... seen from the impounded papers that, there is no heading or any name of the assessee appearing on these impounded papers. The Investigation wing, in post survey verification, had inquired about these papers with Shri Bhagwanjibhai Amrutiya. He, in his statement recorded on 15.03.2019 stated that it relates

Sumerchand T. Agarwal, Pune vs. ITO Ward 8(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 632/PUN/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.632/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Sumerchand T. Agarwal, V The Income Tax Officer, Jai Bajarang Chowk, Pune S. Ward-8(1), Pune. Nashik Road, Near Marut Mandir, Pune – 411039. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaypa0214E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2008-09, Dated 10.01.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 147 Dated 28.01.2016. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

entry of "68000-00" of "Sumer" has been mentioned once again. When the entries of these amounts/ names were questioned by the Investigation wing to Shri. Rajkumar Agarwal, it has been clarified by him that these entries mentioned on page No.27/28 are in respect of cash amount of Rs.50 ... been found from Shri. Rajkumar Agarwal but also he has explained the paper in detail & admitted in the statement recorded on oath by the Investigation wing that the assessee has paid Rs.50,00,000/- in cash in F.Y.2007-08 & the same was repaid in F.Y.2010-11 at Rs.68,00,000/- i.e. with