“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

M/S. Shroff Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1951/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Feb 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1951/Kol/2024 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

brief are that the assessee is a Private Limited company engaged in the business for the A.Y. 2010-11. Ld. AO received information through Investigation Wing wherein about some accommodation entry received by the assessee from M/s. Canary Tradecom Pvt. Ltd. which is alleged to be a Jama Kharchi Company ... that they are merely reasons to suspect and not reason to believe. Ld. AO has proceeded only on the basis of information of Investigation Wing but he has not mentioned any detail about 3 M/s. Shroff Properties Pvt. Ltd. the company giving alleged sum to the assessee and any verification

Puneet Chopra, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 71(4), Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 461/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 131Section 132ASection 147Section 69

assumed jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act on 4ITA Nos. 459 to 462/Del/2019 Suresh Chand Goel Vs. ITO the basis of borrowed satisfaction Investigation Wing, whereinthe A.O. had made no independent enquiry and approval has been granted in mechanical manner by the PCIT ... parties, out of which 60 such parties were transacted through Shri SantLal Aggarwal. 7. The Assessing Officer of the assessee was informed by the Investigation Wing of the department that from verification of documents seized, it clearly appears that Shri SantLal Aggarwal received cash loans from Shri Asharam and further

Natasha Chopra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2291/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi03 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 144Section 153Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

courses. In the said documents, many of the details of capitation fees were written and duly signed by Sh. V. Mathiyalgan and guardian/students. The Investigation wing/ A.O. also recorded statements of some of the parents/guardians/students, who have admitted the fact of paying the capitation fees and some of the students

Natasha Chopra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(1), Delhi

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2290/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi03 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 144Section 153Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Om Prakash Jalan, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed whereas the Cross Objection of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 747/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 153CSection 250Section 69A

information to the concerned Jurisdictional Assessing Officer that Credible information has been received from the statement of Sri Jai Bhagawan Agarwal before the Investigation Wing that the assessee is engaged in a cash transaction and received cash loan to the tune of Rs. 11.05 crore through the broker namely ... apparent from record that in this case, the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment solely on the basis of report of the Investigation Wing and without any application of mind. The contents of the aforesaid para of the assessment order clearly shows that the reopening has been done

Mr. D K Shivakumar, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 205/BANG/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Chandrasekhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Y. V. Raviraj, Sr. Standing Counsel

Section 153ASection 153C

group had purchased shops at Madiwala Commercial Plaza by paying huge premium and these premium amounts have not been accounted by the assessee. The Investigation Wing found documents in respect of the above transactions and the same were seized. The seized material marked as A2/BJPL/4 show that the assessee ... Rs.3.48 crores as additional amount known as Premium for various shops purchased. 3.2 On the basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing and perusal of the seized documents, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the assessment year

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore vs. Mr. D K Shivakumar, Bangalore

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

ITA 48/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

Section 153ASection 153C

group had nurchased shops at Madiwala Commercial Plaza by paying huge premium and these premium amounts have not been accounted by the assessee. The Investigation Wing found documents in respect ot the above transactions and the same were seized. The seized material marked as A2/BJPL/4 show that the assessee ... crores as additional amount known as Premium for various shops purchased. 3.2 On the basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing and perusal of the seized documents, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the assessment year

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore vs. Mr. D K Shivakumar, Bangalore

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

ITA 47/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

Section 153ASection 153C

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore vs. Mr. D K Shivakumar, Bangalore

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

ITA 46/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

Section 153ASection 153C

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore vs. Mr. D K Shivakumar, Bangalore

ITA 45/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Respondent: Shri. Chandrasekhar, AR

Section 153ASection 153C

Satelite Trade Impex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 912/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon'Ble Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250

contents of which are reproduced here in below: 6. For reopening of the completed assessment, the Ld AO has relied on the information of investigation wing Thane. In this regard it is vehemently submitted that the reason recorded for reopening is bad in law and the order passed pursuant thereto ... opening of the assessment does not mention whether income has escaped to assessment. It just says that Information has been received from Investigation Wing that the purchases made from M/s Aadi Impex and M/s Kalash Enterprises are mere an accommodation entry. However, during the course of assessment proceedings all details

Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Kalyan vs. Kumarpal Mahendrakumar Shah, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 5030/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Punjabi, Ld. Adv./ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas P., Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 68

Rs.1,19,359/-. The AO subsequently received the information communicated on 28.02.2018 in respect of beneficiaries of the penny script forwarded by DDIT (investigation wing), 6 Mumbai, wherein it was mentioned that the Assessee during the financial year 2011-12 {Assessment Year 2012-13} had sold shares

Vishwa Glass and Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2547/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K.C. ThackerFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, CIT-DR

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

scrutiny assessment proceedings were concluded in the case of the assessee accepting the income returned. Subsequently, on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing, based on the search action conducted under section 132 of the Act in the case of Shri Jignesh Shah and Shri Sanjay Shah ... assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act accepting the returned income 3. Subsequently, in this case information received from Investigation Wing that the assessee company is a recipient of fictitious loan of Rs 1,15,58,838/-from Jignesh Shah where in search u/s 132 was conducted

Vishwa Glass and Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2546/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri K.C. ThackerFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, CIT-DR

Section 127(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

under normal provision and book profit of Rs.83,74,366/-. 3. Subsequently, in this case information received from Investigation Wing Ahmedabad that the assessee company is a recipient of fictitious loan of Rs 5,12,63,950/- through Mahendra Shantilal Patel (MSP) Group in various financial year which included Rs.20

Smt. Dayawanti, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1639/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Smt. Sangeeta Sawhney, Vs Acit, 6, Link Road, Jangpura Central Circle-7, Extension, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi Pan-Abjps6408A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2012-13] Smt. Sangeeta Sawhney, Vs Dcit, 6, Link Road, Jangpura Central Circle-7, Extension, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi Pan-Abjps6408A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.12.2016 & 30.12.2016 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-25, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.14/15-16/21/16-17 & Appeal No.278/15-16/28/16-17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Penalty Order Dated 21.09.2015 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) R.W.S 274 Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13 Respectively.

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the addition on substantive basis. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the information was available with the Investigation Wing of the Department that the assessee alongwith her husband, Shri Praveen Swahney was having a bank account in HSBC Bank, Geneva, Switzerland. This information

Tijaria Polypipes Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cirlce 4, Jaipur

ITA 616/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Income Tax officer (Inv.), Unit- 1 & AJU, Kolkata, vide letter no. 9301 dt. 06.03.2018. As per the information and material provided by the investigation wing, it was seen that the assessee company has accepted deposits from dummy companies in the form of RTGS/ Transfer through circulatory fashion of money ... Engineers (P) Ltd (2016) Taxmann.com 106 (Gujarat), it was held on the basis of tangible material in the form of specific information received from Investigation Wing regarding bogus transactions, re-opening u/s 147 is justified. 1. What is to be seen at the stage of recording the reasons is existence

Income Tax Officer, Kautaliya Bhavan, Bkc vs. Rajnish Bharti HUF, Darukhana

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4378/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. C.V. JainFor Respondent: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

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

during inquiry proceedings against ‘hawala' dealers, who had issued bogus bills to beneficiaries for suppressing or reducing their profit. The information provided by the Investigation Wing contained name of the parties who issued bogus bills to assessee and amount of bogus bills obtained, aggregating to Rs.17,22,95,332/-. Secondly ... reasons to believe that the income has escaped assessment to that extent. Recourse to the provisions of s.147 was taken on the ground that Investigation Wing has conducted search operation and during the said operation material gathered has been admitted on oath by the party and the same has been

Income Tax Officer 41(3)(3), Bkc vs. Rajnish Bharti HUF, Darukhana

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4377/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. C.V. JainFor Respondent: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

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

Rajnish Bharti HUF, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer 20(3)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3941/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain

Section 143(3)Section 148

reducing their profit. The beneficiaries for suppressing or reducing their profit. The beneficiaries for suppressing or reducing their profit. The information provided by the Investigation Wing contained name of information provided by the Investigation Wing contained name of information provided by the Investigation Wing contained name of the parties

Rajnish Bharti HUF, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer 20(3)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3912/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain

Section 143(3)Section 148