← 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

Surinder Singh Ryait, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, CC-II, Ludhiana

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 154/CHANDI/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.153/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ms. Amarjeet Kaur Ryait Acit # 224-H Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar Central Circle-Ii बनाम/ Vs. Ludhiana-141012 Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abnpr-0576-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.154/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Surinder Singh Ryait Acit बनाम/ Vs. # 224-H Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar Central Circle-Ii Ludhiana-141012 Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abmpr-3196-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri P.K. Goel (Ca) & Shri Sunil Arora (Advocate) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Two Different Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Have Identical Facts. First, We Take Up

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Goel (CA) and Shri Sunil AroraFor Respondent: Ms. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

dislodge the claim of the assessee that the gains were bogus claim. The Ld. AO has merely relied upon subsequent information as received from investigation wing alleging that the entity in consideration was a bogus entity. This being so, the ratio of cited decision of Hon’ble Apex Court

Amarjeet Kaur Ryait, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, CC-II, Ludhiana

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 153/CHANDI/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.153/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ms. Amarjeet Kaur Ryait Acit # 224-H Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar Central Circle-Ii बनाम/ Vs. Ludhiana-141012 Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abnpr-0576-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.154/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Surinder Singh Ryait Acit बनाम/ Vs. # 224-H Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar Central Circle-Ii Ludhiana-141012 Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abmpr-3196-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri P.K. Goel (Ca) & Shri Sunil Arora (Advocate) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Two Different Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Have Identical Facts. First, We Take Up

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Goel (CA) and Shri Sunil AroraFor Respondent: Ms. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

dislodge the claim of the assessee that the gains were bogus claim. The Ld. AO has merely relied upon subsequent information as received from investigation wing alleging that the entity in consideration was a bogus entity. This being so, the ratio of cited decision of Hon’ble Apex Court

Shri Kamlesh Deoraj Jain, Gandhidham Kutchh vs. The ITO Ward 1, Gandhidham

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 62/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 62/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) Kamlesh Deoraj Jain Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Plot No 35-36, Devashish Gandhidham, Income Tax Vs. Sector-5 Gandhidham 370201 Office, Plot No.32, Sector No.3, Near Iffco Colony, Gandhidham-370 201 "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adopj1769Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Puglia, CIT-D.R
Section 144ASection 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

financial year 2017- 18, relevant to the assessment year 2018-19. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed that an inquiry by investigation wing in the case of M/s. Bhagyalaxmi Brinechem Pvt Ltd. (PAN: AAFCB1466R), M/s. Oswal Petrochem (AACFO0223F), M/s. Ankur Chemfood Ltd. (AABCA8203F), and M/s. Smita Enterprises (prop ... genuine and are wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The ld CIT(A) noticed that the information received from investigation wing clearly explains the modus operandi of the bogus transactions, undertaken by the assessee amongst the group concerns namely, M/s Bhagyalaxmi Brinechem Pvt. Ltd., M/s Oswal Petrochem

Wind Financial Services LLP, Daman & Diu vs. PCIT, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 502/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.501 & 502/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Wind Financial Services Llp, Vs. The Pcit, [Formerly Known Wind Financial Valsad Services Pvt. Ltd.] Shop No.102/A, 436 Sq Feet Built Up, Dabhel, Daman & Diu, Valsad – 396215 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfw6369H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri S. N. Divetia, Ar Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From The Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’) By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad [In Short, ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 16.03.2024 For Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since Facts Of The Cases & The Grounds Taken Up In The Appeals Are Similar Except Variation In The Amount, These Appeals Were Heard Together & A Common Order Is Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. Ita No. 501/Srt/2024 Is Taken As The ‘Lead Case’.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

derivative transactions resulting loss of Rs.47,44,400/- through JMFSL on BSE platform. He has observed that as per the information received from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai under “Project Falcon”, there was co-ordinated and premeditated trading in illiquid stock options. Huge losses were generated by various clients by letting

Wind Financial Services LLP, Daman & Diu vs. PCIT, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 501/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.501 & 502/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Wind Financial Services Llp, Vs. The Pcit, [Formerly Known Wind Financial Valsad Services Pvt. Ltd.] Shop No.102/A, 436 Sq Feet Built Up, Dabhel, Daman & Diu, Valsad – 396215 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfw6369H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri S. N. Divetia, Ar Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From The Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’) By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad [In Short, ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 16.03.2024 For Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since Facts Of The Cases & The Grounds Taken Up In The Appeals Are Similar Except Variation In The Amount, These Appeals Were Heard Together & A Common Order Is Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. Ita No. 501/Srt/2024 Is Taken As The ‘Lead Case’.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

derivative transactions resulting loss of Rs.47,44,400/- through JMFSL on BSE platform. He has observed that as per the information received from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai under “Project Falcon”, there was co-ordinated and premeditated trading in illiquid stock options. Huge losses were generated by various clients by letting

ITO 13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sonasta Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections are also dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1775/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1775/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) Ito 13(2)(1), Mumbai V/S. Sonasta Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 147, Aayakar बिधम 111, Small Scale Industrial Bhavan, Churchgate, M. K. Premises Soc. Ltd. 7, Road, Mumbai, Udyog Nagar, S. V. Road, Maharashtra-400020 Goregaon, Maharashtra- 400062 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecs0035L Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Chaturvedi
Section 131Section 133ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

case are that the assessee company filed return declaring income of Rs. 34,54,060/- on 29.09.2013. Based on the information received from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 19.03.2020 by the Ld. AO. A survey u/s 133A of the Act had been conducted ... Before us, Ld. DR has heavily relied on the orders of Ld. AO and argued that the based on the report of the investigation wing, the case was reopened as JPV Group was found to have indulged in bogus accommodation entries, and the assessee company was one of the beneficiaries