“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

Vishal Kishorilal Jain, Nagpur vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle-4, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 108/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(40)Section 68Section 69

seizure action under section 132 of the was conducted on M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. (“SRMSCS”). The Investigation Wing of the Department discovered that multiple accounts were opened in the name of the society and a huge cash deposits were made at both ... remitting abroad with falsified documentation, payment of customs duty, purchasing bullion, transferring to other parties, or withdrawing by beneficiaries. Physical verification by the Investigation Wing of the Department revealed that many account holders were untraceable, with most notices returning un–served and limited compliance. The account holders' creditworthiness could

Ideal Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1344/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment only on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of the department during assessment proceedings of third party. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action ... income for the AY 2009-10 on 29.09.2009 showing total income of Rs. 24,685/-. Subsequently, information was received from the office of the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Dept, Ahmedabad, that the assessee had received an amount of Rs. 1,18,25,000/- as share I.T.A. No.: 1344/KOL/2019

ACIT, 20(1), Mumbai vs. Indu Mahendra Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4858/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 4858/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Acit, 20(1), V/S. Indu Mahendra Shah Room No. 305, 3Rd Floor, बिधम 601, Harbour Crest Bldg, Piramal Chambers 6Th Floor, Mazzgaon, Lalbaug, Maharashtra- Maharashtra-400010 400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Alrps2482C Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Tejas ChandaranaFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 69C

made by the AO without appreciating the facts of the case and modus operandi as a detailed investigation has been carried out by the Investigation Wing of Kolkata in the scrip M/s. Comfort Intech Ltd. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case ... return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, based on the information received from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, that the assessee had purchased shares in a penny stock of M/s. Comfort Intech Ltd. during the year under consideration, the case was reopened

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vishal Gold & Precious Stones Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 951/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Acit, Vs. M/S. Vishal Gold & Circle-26(2), Precious Stones Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi B-5, Moti Nagar, Near Durga Mandir, New Delhi- 110015 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcv8836H

For Appellant: Shri Nagesh Behl, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

instant case, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 19.03.2012. Certain statements were recorded from alleged entry operators by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department which were forwarded to the ld AO and which alone triggered the initiation of reassessment proceedings of the assessee vide ... Hence, this is a clear case of borrowed satisfaction on the part of the ld AO. The statements recorded by the Investigation Wing were not forwarded to the assessee either by the Investigation Wing or by the ld AO in the readable format. It is pertinent to note that

Yenkey Roller Flour Mills, Calicut vs. DCIT C-1(1), Kozhikkode

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed

ITA 522/COCH/2023[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149

issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 23.03.2013 after recording the following reasons u/s. 147 of the Act:- "Information has been received from investigation Wing Calicut that bank account No. 1331 in the name of M/S. M.P. Traders shows huge credits and all these are cheque payments from Parrissons

Mansi Didwania, Lucknow vs. D/ACIT-3, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 450/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow14 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshramansi Didwania Dcit/Acit-3 V. 112/16, Shri Ram Road, Lucknow-New/Nfac Aminabad, Lucknow, U.P.- Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 226018. Ram Trith Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aeupd8333B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P.K. Kapoor, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 05 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 05 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl

Section 147Section 151Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 69Section 69C

reason to believe was recorded on wrong facts; (vi) reason to believe was recorded merely on the basis of information received from investigation wing without independent application of mind by the AO; (v) reason to believe is highly vague in which there is complete lack of live-link or nexus

Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Ludhiana, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Waryam Steel Casting Private Limited, Kanganwal Road

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 757/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Muskan Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 148Section 250

fraudulent entity with no actual business, based on investigations by the DGGI, GST Intelligence, Delhi Zone, and the Income Tax Department’s Investigation Wing. Rahul Pratap Singh, the proprietor of GSTC, stated on oath that neither he nor his family were associated with GSTC, claiming it was a fake entity ... receipt of information that per investigations carried out by DGGI, GST Intelligence, Delhi Zone and by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, it was determined that the said concern M/s Gauri Shankar Trading Co. (GSTC) is, allegedly, a fraud concern with no actual business and GSTC was also

Waryam Steel Castings Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 715/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Muskan Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 148Section 250

Asst. CIT- 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Dinesh Harichand Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3928/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer Jain, C.A. & Shri ShobitFor Respondent: Shri Govindrao J. Ninawe, Sr. D/R

Section 143(1)Section 68

return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and subsequently reopened on the basis of information received from the investigation wing of the Department by which the AO came to know that the assessee has taken loan from persons who are involved in the providing bogus accommodation entries

Ajay Kumar Khurana, New Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-20, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2666/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumar[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Ajay Kumar Khurana Vs Pr.Cit-20 37-B, Pocket-Iv New Delhi Mayur Vihar, Phase-I Delhi-110091 Pan-Aagpk1260N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms.Monika Ghai, Adv. Shri Sharad Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Dipanshu Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.05.2025

Section 147Section 263

That the Ld. PCIT has revised the order of the Ld. AO u/s 263 merely only on the basis of the report of the investigation wing hence the revision order passed u/s 263 is illegal and bad in the eyes of law.” 3. As per the grounds of appeal

Sunita Sarda, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 71(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2215/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmansunita Sarda, Vs. Acit, Circle 71 (1), 5/5761, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 005. (Pan : Aanps7143M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Vidhi Mangla, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date Of Order : 14.05.2025 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 06.06.2023 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Has Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.09.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,42,000/-. The Department Has Received Information From Office Of Ddit (Inv.), Unit 6 (3), New Delhi On 06.03.2018 That The Assessee Has Taken Bogus Accommodation Entry Amounting To Rs.17,25,000/- During Fy 2010-11 By Trading In The Penny Scrip I.E. M/S. Global Capital

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi Mangla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

Income Tax v. Smt. Krishna Devi (Infra)], as there is no material placed on record apart from uncorroborated excerpts of Report by the Investigation wing, blanket reliance on which is non-est and perverse vide Signature Hotels (P.) v. ITO [2012] 20 taxmann.com 797 (Delhi) . 13. That ... Section 10(38), in a pre- planned manner to evade taxes. The AO extensively relied upon the search and survey operations conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department in Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai and Ahmedabad on penny stocks, which sets out the modus operandi adopted in the business

Hetal Rakesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1727/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Hetal Rakesh Mehta Acit, Central Circle 1(2), 9/10, Vidya Nagar, 60 Feet Road, Vs. Pune Ghatkopar East, Mumbai – 400077 Pan: Ammpm9670L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms Simran Dhawan (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ravi Prakash

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

providing data entries for purchases made by M/s. BVG India Ltd. He noted from the details furnished and the appraisal report of the investigation wing that the assessee has made sale of Rs.11,36,79,121/- in financial year 2017-18 relevant to assessment year

Unique Finance & Securities Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Unique Finance & Securities Acit, Circle 7(1) Private Limited Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Plot-35, 11/1A/1, East Topsia Chowringhee Square, Kolkata, Vs. Road, Gobinda Khatick Road, West Bengal, 700069 Kolkata, West Bengal, 700046 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr2528L Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Fca Revenue By : Shri Akhil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.05.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Akhil Kumar, SR. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148

duly responded and all the information/details were furnished. The only ground on which the ld. AO made the addition was the report of the investigation wing and the statement of Shri Pankaj Agarwal, however we note that the nowhereShri Pankaj Agarwal has ever mentioned or uttered about the assessee. Therefore

DCIT-C-6(2), Mumbai vs. Samira Habitats India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 5714/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.5714/Mum/2024 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 250

computed by the assessee in AY 2011-12. 6.3. The assessee has also produced copies of the seized material seized by the investigation wing during the search. The seized material produced is a loose paper folder containing pages 1 to 15 and marked as Annexure A-3. These papers have

DCIT-C-6(2), Mumbai vs. Samira Habitats, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

ITA 5710/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 250

computed by the assessee in AY 2011-12. 6. 3. The assessee has also produced copies of the seized material seized by the investigation wing during the search. The seized material produced is a loose paper folder containing pages 1 to 15 and marked as Annexure A-3. These papers

DCIT-C-6(2), Mumbai vs. Samira Habitats India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

ITA 5709/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 250

computed by the assessee in AY 2011-12. 6. 3. The assessee has also produced copies of the seized material seized by the investigation wing during the search. The seized material produced is a loose paper folder containing pages 1 to 15 and marked as Annexure A-3. These papers

DCIT Circle-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sunjewels Private Limited, Andheri East, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5244/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Sunjewels Private Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, – 3(2)(1), Mumbai Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – Sunjewels Private Limited 3(2)(1), Mumbai 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Ravikanth PathakFor Respondent: Shri. Prashant Barote, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 72ASection 72A(2)(b)Section 80G

other hand restricted to 10% of the total alleged bogus purchases. It is observed that based on the search action conducted by the investigation wing in the case of Shri Rajendra Jain and Shri Surendra Jain who are controlling and managing M/s. Arihant Export and Adi Impex as per their

Sunjewels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax - 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4720/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Ravikanth PathakFor Respondent: Shri. Prashant Barote, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 72ASection 72A(2)(b)Section 80G

Nitin Garg HUF, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 29(4), New Delhi

ITA 302/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

Section 10(38), in a pre-planned manner to evade taxes. The AO extensively relied upon the search and survey operations conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department in Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai and Ahmedabad on penny stocks, which sets out the modus operandi adopted in the business

Shyam Mahima Colonisers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 930/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarm/S. Shyam Mahima Colonisers Pvt. Ltd., 502, Ruby Tower, Somdutta Apartment, Hawa Sarak, Jaipur - 302006. Pan No. Aaqcs 3093Q ...... Appellant

For Appellant: Mr. S.B. Natani, C.A., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

that the assessee company filed its return of income on 24.09.2012 at Rs. NIL. A search and seizure action was carried out by the Investigation Wing of the department at Kolkata in the case of Sh. Praveen Agarwal and his group companies on 13.09.2012. During the course of search