← 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

DCIT Central Circle-25, New Delhi vs. Neel Metal Products Ltd (Formely Known As Neel Auto Pvt Ltd), New Delhi

ITA 273/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

business premises of the appellant company or from the premise of directors of the appellant company. Shri Prahsesh Arya filed affidavit dated 17/10/2017 before Investigation wing vide letter dated 18/10/2017, though filed on 23.10.2017 where he deposed that cash of Rs 5,55,46,490/- found during the course ... which have also been disclosed by Sh. Prashesh Arya in his individual return of income. Even in the affidavit so filed before Investigation Wing it has been submitted by Shri Prahsesh Arya that various noting or message in the mobile phone found during the course of search is rough noting

Neel Metal Products Ltd (Formely Known As Neel Auto Pvt Ltd), New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-25, New Delhi

ITA 240/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

business premises of the appellant company or from the premise of directors of the appellant company. Shri Prahsesh Arya filed affidavit dated 17/10/2017 before Investigation wing vide letter dated 18/10/2017, though filed on 23.10.2017 where he deposed that cash of Rs 5,55,46,490/- found during the course ... which have also been disclosed by Sh. Prashesh Arya in his individual return of income. Even in the affidavit so filed before Investigation Wing it has been submitted by Shri Prahsesh Arya that various noting or message in the mobile phone found during the course of search is rough noting

Neel Metal Products Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-25, New Delhi

ITA 239/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

business premises of the appellant company or from the premise of directors of the appellant company. Shri Prahsesh Arya filed affidavit dated 17/10/2017 before Investigation wing vide letter dated 18/10/2017, though filed on 23.10.2017 where he deposed that cash of Rs 5,55,46,490/- found during the course ... which have also been disclosed by Sh. Prashesh Arya in his individual return of income. Even in the affidavit so filed before Investigation Wing it has been submitted by Shri Prahsesh Arya that various noting or message in the mobile phone found during the course of search is rough noting

Neel Metal Products Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-25, New Delhi

ITA 238/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

business premises of the appellant company or from the premise of directors of the appellant company. Shri Prahsesh Arya filed affidavit dated 17/10/2017 before Investigation wing vide letter dated 18/10/2017, though filed on 23.10.2017 where he deposed that cash of Rs 5,55,46,490/- found during the course ... which have also been disclosed by Sh. Prashesh Arya in his individual return of income. Even in the affidavit so filed before Investigation Wing it has been submitted by Shri Prahsesh Arya that various noting or message in the mobile phone found during the course of search is rough noting

Neel Metal Products Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-25, New Delhi

ITA 232/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

business premises of the appellant company or from the premise of directors of the appellant company. Shri Prahsesh Arya filed affidavit dated 17/10/2017 before Investigation wing vide letter dated 18/10/2017, though filed on 23.10.2017 where he deposed that cash of Rs 5,55,46,490/- found during the course ... which have also been disclosed by Sh. Prashesh Arya in his individual return of income. Even in the affidavit so filed before Investigation Wing it has been submitted by Shri Prahsesh Arya that various noting or message in the mobile phone found during the course of search is rough noting

Alosha Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 356/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

within the meaning of sec 147. 9. Perusal of the reasons reveals that ld. Assessing Officer has referred to the information received from the Investigation Wing giving a general statement that there are certain matters of tax evasion by some individuals and entities by showing income from long-term capital ... ground that no proper reasons have been recorded for reopening of assessment and the reasons recorded are merely based on the information received from Investigation Wing and cannot be treated as “reasons to believe” but are merely “reasons to suspect” and mere suspicion of the ld. Assessing Officer towards

Alosha Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 313/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Alosha Marketing Pvt. Ltd.,……………..………Appellant 62A, Hazra Road, Kolkata-700019 [Pan:Aacca1930G] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.…Respondent Circle-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri N.S. Saini, A.R. & Priyanka Salarpuria, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 08, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

assessment. As seen from the assessment order, the AO apparently received the information about assessee’s transactions with bogus accommodation entry providers from the Investigation wing based on which the case was validly re-opened u/s 147 after securing due approval from the competent authorities. The assessee responded ... connection with the share purchases. 8. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, contended that the ld. Assessing Officer received information from the Investigation Wing and on the basis of that he has reopened the assessment, which has been upheld by the ld. CIT(Appeals). All these transactions of sale

M/S. Shanker Logistices (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 829/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.829/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Shankar Logistics (P) Ltd.….…….…............…...……………....Appellant 207, Maharshi Divendra Road, West Bengal-700007. [Pan: Aajcs8693P] Vs. Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata….....…........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 08, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.06.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.85,98,795/- By The Ld. Cit(A) As Made By The Assessing Officer Treating The Unsecured Loans Taken By The Assessee As Bogus & Thereby Making The Addition Of The Aforesaid Amount As Unexplained Income Of The Assessee. The Assessee Apart From Challenging The Additions On Merits Has Also Contested The Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

name of various companies and their directors have been mentioned and it has been further stated that as per the information received from the Investigation Wing, the said companies are shell companies being used for providing accommodation entries on commission basis by their directors. In the third page, the Assessing ... Kolkata.” 3.1 The ld. Counsel referring to the aforesaid reasons recorded has submitted that the information received by the Assessing Officer from the Investigation Wing was vague. The only allegation in the reasons recorded is that the assessee has received an accommodation entry of Rs.20,00,000/-, however, there

Mohammed Ibrabim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 486/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 466/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

ITA 465/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 153ASection 69B

purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 464/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 463/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements

M/S. Emirates Hindustan Builders and Developers, Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 415/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Guru Kumar S., D.R
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements

Mkh Infrastructure, Kerala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 174/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Guru Kumar S., D.R
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-46(1), Delhi, New Delhi vs. Shri Deepak Gambhir, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2466/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Shri Deepak Gambhir, Circle-46(1), 68/8, Nea, Near Sindhi New Delhi Park, Old Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aakpg2768D Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Adv Ms. Uma Upadhyay, Ca Revenue By: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/07/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

searched person is a necessary requirement for initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act and information in this case was disseminated by investigation wing of the department? 3. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in overlooking the fact

Yash Daga, Jaipur vs. PCIT-I, Jaipur

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

ITA 686/JPR/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SH. NARENDRA KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 144BSection 263Section 282Section 56(2)(x)

address the specific facts or the specific concerns from any other information in the public domain or made any efforts seeking information from the Investigation Wing of the Department, sat over the information for a period of almost 5 months and passed the order upsetting a statutory order which

M/S Arv Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3961/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla (Jm) & Smt. Renu Jauhri (Am) I.T.A. No. 3961/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2011-12) M/S. Arv Enterprises Vs. Acit-22(1) 17, Vasant Villa 322, 3Rd Floor Jain Derasar Marg Pirmal Chambers S.V. Road, Santacruz Lalbaug, Parel West, Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400 054. 012. Pan : Aamfa4079M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajesh Kothari Department By Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha Date Of Hearing 16.04.2024 Date Of 05.07.2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri (Am) :-

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 68Section 69C

which was processed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act. Subsequently, information was received from the Investigation wing vide email dated 29.12.2018 containing a list of buyers and sellers of the scrip viz. SVC Resources Ltd., a shell company. Based on the 4 M/s. ARV Enterprises information from ADIT

Chemstar International, Mumbai vs. DCIT- 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3799/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Jm) I.T.A. Nos. 3798 & 3799/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & Ay. 2014-15) Chemstar International Vs. Dcit-24(1) 102-D, Nirman Palace, Piramal Chambers, Pump House, Rajmata Lalbaug, Mumbai- Jijabai Road, Andheri 400012. East, Mumbai-400093. Pan : Aabfc8974G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Ridhisha Jain Department By Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 19.06.2024 Dateof Pronouncement 05.07.2024 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (Am) :-

Section 133ASection 35(1)(ii)

claimed deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act @ 175% of the donation amount, which worked out to Rs.1,31,25,000/-. 4. The Investigation Wing of Kolkata, carried out survey operations u/s 133A of the Act in the hands of both the organizations referred above and it was found ... both these organizations were providing bogus donation certificates through various broker in lieu of receiving commission. Based on the above said information of the Investigation wing, the Assessing Officer (AO) took the view that the donation claimed to have been paid by assessee in both these years are bogus

Chemstar International, Mumbai vs. DCIT-24(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3798/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Jm) I.T.A. Nos. 3798 & 3799/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & Ay. 2014-15) Chemstar International Vs. Dcit-24(1) 102-D, Nirman Palace, Piramal Chambers, Pump House, Rajmata Lalbaug, Mumbai- Jijabai Road, Andheri 400012. East, Mumbai-400093. Pan : Aabfc8974G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Ridhisha Jain Department By Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 19.06.2024 Dateof Pronouncement 05.07.2024 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (Am) :-

Section 133ASection 35(1)(ii)

claimed deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act @ 175% of the donation amount, which worked out to Rs.1,31,25,000/-. 4. The Investigation Wing of Kolkata, carried out survey operations u/s 133A of the Act in the hands of both the organizations referred above and it was found ... both these organizations were providing bogus donation certificates through various broker in lieu of receiving commission. Based on the above said information of the Investigation wing, the Assessing Officer (AO) took the view that the donation claimed to have been paid by assessee in both these years are bogus