← 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

ACIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata vs. Sawansukha Jewellers Private Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 1615/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Sawansukhajewellers Acit, Circle-7(1), Private Limited 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 4Th Floor, 9, Camac Street, Vs. Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700017, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcs2477R Co No. 32/Kol/2024 (Airing Out Of The Ita No. 1615/Kol/2024 For A.Y. 2018-19) Sawansukhajewellers Acit, Circle-7(1), Private Limited 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 4Th Floor, 9, Camac Street, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700017, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mondal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148

income on 28.04.2022, declaring the same income as declared in the original return of income. Thereafter, the ld. AO after referring to the investigation wing search/ investigation, on the suspicious transactions between Bhanwar L. Gurjar, Prop of M/s Kakoda International and M/s Tanman Jewels Pvt. ltd. treated the purchases ... bogus. The ld. AO noted that the investigation wing observed during the course of investigation that these transactions made for the purpose of layering of funds. It was further revealed that office of the said concern was closed and no ITA No. 1615/KOL/2024 & CO 32/KOL/2024 SawansukhaJewellers Private Limited

Shri Abhishek Lodha, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6056/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shri. Abhishek Lodha Acit, Central Circle 1(3) C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate, 512, Ayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400020. Times Square – 1, Opp. Ram Baug Vs. Bungalow, Thaltej Shilaj Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad, Gujrat – 380059. Pan/Gir No. Aeqpl0917R (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Aman Shah/Shri. Ketan Shah : Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia, (Sr. Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 47, Mumbai (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. In Issuing Notice U/S 148 Dated 05-09-2018 For The Ay 2015-16, It Is Said That, The Whole Proceeding Is Itself Bad In Law & Void & Further, There Is No Such Approval U/S 151 Of The Act & Therefore, The Proceeding Is Bad. 2. In Making Addition Of Rs. 7,63,706/- In Reference To The Commission Income, It Is Said That In View Of The Facts Of The Case, There Is No Evidence Regarding Earning Of Any Commission & Therefore, The Addition Is Required To Be Deleted. Shri. Abhishek Lodha

For Appellant: Shri. Aman Shah/Shri. Ketan Shah
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 250

same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The assessee’s case was reopened based on the information received from the investigation wing, Mumbai, vide notice u/s. 148, dated 05.09.2018, pursuant to the search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Act carried out in the case of Shri