“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

Manoj Kumar Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-10(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3264/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment by issuing notice under section 143(2), dated 29.07.2016 based on information from the Investigation Wing of the Department that the assessee had transacted in certain shares characterised by the Department as penny scrip. After necessary investigation and examination, said ... conclusion by observing that there is unusual rise in the price of the shares sold by the assessee which has been investigated by the Investigation Wing of the Department to establish that cash has been routed from various accounts to provide accommodation to the assessee and that assessee had failed

Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3173/DEL/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Ms.Madhumita Roynova Promoters & Vs. Ito, Ward 13(3) Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Ito Building, I.P. Estate 7, Kapil Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi – 34

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anshul

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

information given by them to the P a g e | 4 Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward 13(3) Investigation Wing, 15 companies had provided the so-called "share application money to the assessee There was thus specific involvement of the assessee company in the modus operandi ... link between P a g e | 6 Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward 13(3) the material gathered by the investigation wing and the assessee company stands not only established at the stage at which notice under Section 148 was issued, but also in the course

Dy.CIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Needful Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3348/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra &For Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

No.1671/KOL/2017 restored the matter back to the file of Ld CIT(A). 3. In the mean time, the AO received information from the Investigation Wing, Kolkattathat the assessee has received above mentioned share application money by way of accommodation entries from some of the companies managed by a person named ... made addition of Rs.38,08,50,000/-. 4. In the reassessment proceedings, the AO placed reliance on the report given by the Investigation Wing and held that the share application money received by the assessee is only an accommodation entry. The AO, however, noticed that the above said amount

Dy.CIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Needful Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2940/MUM/2023[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2024

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra &For Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Industrial Laminates India Private Limited, Shahpur Thane vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6 (3) (1) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 2599/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: ShriH.M. Bhatt (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 69

assessment year 2012-13 on dated 30.09.2012 declaring an income of Rs. 20,28,450/-. On the basis of information received from the investigation wing of Mumbai that the appellant had made certain high value transactions in its bank account which was not in commensurate with its financials/return of income

Govindam Export, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jpr, Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the results all the appeals filed by the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 429/JPR/2024[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2024AY 1998-99

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Agarwal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 260ASection 80H

bagus purchase bills and earned commission on issue of bogus purchase bills On the other hand the assessee has made detailed statements before the Investigation Wing wherein he has clearly admitted the delivery of goods against the sales. The assessee reiterated the same facts before the statements recorded

Vikas Parasmal Nahar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-29(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee succeeds

ITA 2545/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Shri Pravin M ChavanSR.DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 69

under section 132 of the Act in the premises of M/s Rajesh Life Space group on dated 12/03/2016. As per the report of the investigation wing of department of Mumbai, the assessee has paid Rs.8,55,000/- in cash to the Rajesh LIFE Space group for purchase of flat No.1136

Allied Engineers and Elastomers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 18(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1687/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram a/w Shri Rahul KFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69C

assessment, for that assessment year. The ld AR further submitted that the second reopening is done on the basis of report of investigation wing without any independent application of mind by the AO. The ld AR also submitted that there is no failure on the part of the assessee ... information from DDIT(Inv). Therefore in our considered view the entire reopening is carried out only on the basis of report of investigation wing without any independent enquiry and without any tangible material in the hands of the AO to show that the assessee was involved in taking accommodation entry

Vandana Deepak Savla, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 27(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 1342/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am Vandana Deepak Savla Income Tax Officer 27(3)(5) 25,47, Divya Darshan, Mumbai Jagdhusha Nagar, Ghatkopar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 086

For Appellant: Shri Bharat B Raichandani/For Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

taking into consideration that the Ld. Assessing officer has not established any nexus in connection of the alleged money trail found by the investigation wing The Ld. Commissioner has erred in making addition on account of 3% commission on 2 4,66,418 long term capital gain 2 Vandana Deepak

Kunal Tejesh Gandhi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 25(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 3913/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Kunal Tejesh Gandhi Ito-25(2)(5) 2Nd Floor, Shehnaz Building, Mumbai Samarth Ramdas Road, Jvpd, Vs. 10Th Road, Juhu, Mumbai – 400 049

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule

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

case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act vide notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 23.09.2016 as per the information received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee was one of the beneficiary of accommodation entries provided by the group entities of Shri Anil Agarwal by way of LTCG ... substantiate the increase in the price of the shares in the scrip purchased by the assessee. The ld. DR further stated that the Investigation Wing has reported the said scrip to be a penny stock 4 Kunal Tejesh Gandhi vs. ITO and prayed that the addition be upheld

Arvindkumar Amulkh Tanna, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2 (3), Ahmeadabad

ITA 577/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

order to evade the taxes. Consequently, Directorate of Investigation, Ahmedabad put under scrutiny 85 entities who booked losses more than Rs.10 crores on NMCE. Investigation Wing prepared the list of beneficiaries as per information provided by the Investigating Directorate and the assessee was found to be one of the beneficiaries

Shreem Electric Limited, Kolhapur vs. ACIT Central Circle, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 898/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.898/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2017-18 Shreem Electric Limited, V The Assistant Plot No.43 To 46, S Commissioner Of Income L.K.Akiwate Industrial Tax, Estate, Jaysingpur, Shirol, Central Circle, Kolhapur. Kolhapur – 416144. Pan: Aaccs4893C Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak -Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 31/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 31.01.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Penalty Under Section 270A Of Rs.3,01,124/-. Shreem Electric Limited, Kolhapur[A] 2. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That, Since The Addition Is Made On Adhoc Basis, No Penalty Can Be Levied. 3. The Penalty Levied May Please Be Delete. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Delete Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.” 2. There Is A Delay Of Two Months Of Filing Appeal Before This Tribunal. Considering The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit, We Are Convinced With The Reasons For Delay & In The Larger Interest Of Justice, We Condone The Delay.

Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(6)

affidavit that there were no purchases from ABN Trade Link Pvt. Ltd., during the year. Therefore, the Assessing Officer(AO) sought information from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai. The Investigation Wing, Mumbai submitted that M/s.RadianceMultitrade Pvt. Ltd., had provided accommodation entries of Rs.1,26,32,550/- to M/s.Shreem Electric

Dinesh Kumar Singhi, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 481/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R Pradeep & Ms. Girija G.PFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 234ASection 68Section 69C

evidences filed before the AO are annexed in Paper Book- Page Number 103-119. However, the ld. AO relying upon the reports of investigation wing as well as certain other reports of agencies concluded that the impugned shares of M/s PSIT was penny stock and hence the assessee ... that alleged companies were included in list of penny stock companies, in enquiries conducted by SEBI/BSE, as well as in Investigation Report issued by Investigation Wing, Kolkata. The Assessee having purchased shares of this company in huge volumes, should have possessed all required documents, as a prudent investor. The Assessee

Multiventure Estates Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 511/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

Rs.1,01,758/-. Case of the assessee was re-opened by issuing notice u/s. 148 on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department that assessee has received unsecured loan of Rs.2 Crores from Vinamra Universal Traders Pvt. Ltd. during the year. Assessee is stated

Multiventure Estates Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 510/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

Rapti Premises Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 11(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 303/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

basis of the information received from the DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai to the effect that search and seizure action was carried out by the Investigation Wing of 2 M/s. Rapti Premises Private Limited the Department in the case of Praveen Kumar Jain and his group concern and during the course

Umesh M Shah HUF, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, (a) the appeal of the assessee numbered as ITA No

ITA 2697/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya - CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Chavan (Sr. DR)

Section 68

reasoning that it is one of the penny stocks. In this regard, the AO has placed reliance on the report given by Investigation wing, Delhi. It is pertinent to note that the above said addition has been made

Umesh M Shah HUF, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, (a) the appeal of the assessee numbered as ITA No

ITA 2673/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya - CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Chavan (Sr. DR)

Section 68

DCIT CC, 4(3), Mumbai vs. Nouveau Global Ventures Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3611/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Bansal, &For Respondent: Mr. S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR &

Section 132Section 153CSection 68

case are that in the search action carried out u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act') by the Investigation Wing, Income-tax Departmental, Delhi in the case of 'sh Rajkumar Kedia' Group on 13.06.2014, it was found that share/scrip of the assessee company had been

DCIT CC, 4(3), Mumbai vs. Nouveau Global Ventures Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3609/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Bansal, &For Respondent: Mr. S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR &

Section 132Section 153CSection 68