“investigation wing”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 14712,584 judgments

The decision most relied on for investigation wing is Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (329 ITR 110), cited in 217 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on investigation wing

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.

PCIT v. M/s. Kesoram Industries 57

417 ITR 334 · 2019 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessment completed under Section 143(3) cannot be reopened after four years solely based on third-party information or opinions, such as from an Investigation Wing, without the Assessing Officer applying their own independent mind to the material and having new, independent material on record.

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.

Aradhna Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

91 Taxmann.com 119 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer is justified in reopening assessment proceedings based on information received from the Investigation Wing, even when recording findings also rely on documents already on record, provided all procedural requirements for reassessment are met.

Judgments citing investigation wing

Gita M Shah, Mumbai vs. Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4484/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Shivani ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

rebut the evidence submitted by the appellant during the course of the re-assessment proceeding and merely relying upon the report of the investigation wing. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in adding consideration received on the sale

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Javerilal Dalichand Bhansali, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 6284/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Riddhisha Jain & Mr. Karan Jain (virtually)For Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (SR DR)

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250

cheque number could not be mentioned on the sale purchase bills pertaining to broker.” 3.1 The analysis and evidences as gathered by the investigation wing also reveals that the assessee's purchases are non-genuine to the extent of Rs.8,31,92,583/- for the A.Y. 2011-12 and sale ... unable to provide the details of sales made to various parties corresponding to purchases. 3.2 The bill to bill mapping was made by the investigation Wing of these 45 parties on the basis of back up of books of accounts. From the analysis of data backup, the business of providing

Vidur Chharia, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

ITA 209/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 24Section 68Section 69C

examination was not provided by the Id AO to the assessee and no action has been taken on Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta by the Investigation Wing or by the AO after his retraction. Page | 12 ITA No. 209/Del/2025 ITA No. 208/Del/2025 ITA No. 207/Del/2025 13. The Id DR before

Rakesh Chharia & Sons HUF, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

ITA 208/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 24Section 68Section 69C

Pole-Ads Advertising Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

ITA 207/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 24Section 68Section 69C

Chirag Bhikhabhai Patel, Mahemdabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 727/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.727/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2019-20 बनाम/ Chirag Bhikhabhai Patel Dcit, Central Circle-1, Jamnagar Vs 10-B, Navjivan Society, Income Tax Office, Taranjali Mahmedabad Kheda Building, Near Amber Cinema, 387130, Gujarat India Jamnagar, Jamnagar Gujarat 361008 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aiepp7006P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Rutvika, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 29ASection 80G

issue are that the assessee filed his return of income on 28.06.2019 declaring total income at Rs. 16,06,910/-. Information received from Investigation Wing, which suggested that the assessee has shown donation of Rs. 4,00,000/- to Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular), a Registered Unrecognized Political Party ('RUPP

Ravi Kumar Prasad, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 48(2), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 889/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Thakur, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)

hold that the said orders of SEBI is no evidence against the assessee, much less to speak of direct evidence. The enquiry by the Investigation Wing and/or the statements of several persons recorded by the Investigation Wing in connection with the alleged bogus transactions in the shares of KAFL also

Geeta Babu Sawant, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands

ITA 138/MUM/2026[AY 2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 292BSection 68

genuineness of loan transactions recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee received from the parties enlisted in the information provided by the Investigation Wing and these entities are shell companies which are operated, managed and controlled by Praveen Agarwal group for providing accommodation entries only." 4. "On facts ... argued that the appellant was not provided opportunity to cross examine the witness, whose statement was recorded by the investigation wing. Para 7.3.1. I have considered the submission of the appellant and the discussion made in the assessment order. Appellant has furnished confirmation from all the three parties, copy

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2831/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

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

For Respondent: Rajan Vora a/w

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 151

Secondly, during the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer had also received information in respect of certain sub- contract expenses which according to Investigation Wing of Income- tax Department, Ahmadabad were not genuine. Accordingly, after carrying out inquiry during the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer held corresponding expenses ... invalid. 7.2 Elaborating the submission, the learned counsel pointed out that during the relevant period, summons under section 131(1A) were issued by the Investigation Wing, Ahmedabad, to the assessee and certain contractors. The assessee submitted details of various projects at Gujarat along with copies of work orders issued

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Kolkata vs. Kanya Kumari Properties Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITAT/164/2025HC Calcutta09 Jan 2026

Bench: : The Hon'Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj & The Hon’Ble Justice Uday Kumar Date : 9Th January, 2026

Section 35(1)(ii)Section 68

circumstances of the case the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in law in not considering the detailed report of the Investigation Wing on HHBRF the donee company? e) WHETHER in facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Santosh Vimlesh Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3725/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit(Cc)-8(3) Santosh Vimlesh Mehta Room No. 661 6Th Floor, Aaykar 10, Mumbadevi Road, Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbadevi, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400020 Mumbai Pan No. Abhpm 0883 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Devendra JainFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra Mahajan, SR-DR

Section 10(38)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI ANIKESH

Rakesh Divedi, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 43(6), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3290/DEL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalrakesh Divedi, Income Tax Officer, 87, Triveni Apartments, Ward-43(6), Delhi. Pitampura, New Delhi - Vs. 110034. Pan-Apcpd9179A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Pranshu Singhal, Ca Assessee By & Ms. Mansi Jain, Adv. Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short) Dated 07.03.2025 In Appeal No.40/10204/2018-19 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(3) U/S 143(3) Of The Act (‘The Act’ For Short) Dated 20.12.2016 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Proprietor Of M/S Triambkay Gauri Impex. The Information Was Received By The Ao From Investigation Wing That There Were Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Of The Assesse With Icici Bank, However, Income Of The Assessee & Gross Receipt Has Not Rakesh Divedi Vs. Income Tax Officer Commensurate With The Cash So Deposited, Therefore, After Recording The Reason U/S 147, Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 31.03.2016 After Obtaining Statutory Approval From The Pcit. Thereafter, Assessment Was Completed Vide Order Dated 20.12.2016 Wherein Total Addition Of Rs. 5,20,88,345/- Was Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Cash Deposited In The Bank Accounts By Holding The Same As Unexplained Cash Credits. 3. Against The Said Order, Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) Who Vide Impugned Order Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee & Directed The Ao To Make Addition Of Peak Credit Of The Total Deposits In The Bank Accounts.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

case are that assessee is an individual and proprietor of M/s Triambkay Gauri Impex. The information was received by the AO from Investigation Wing that there were cash deposits in the bank account of the assesse with ICICI Bank, however, income of the assessee and gross receipt has not Rakesh

Avtar Singh Kochar, Rohtak vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, Delhi

ITA 2909/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. MayankPatawari, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. AlashOjha, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 153D

thus in regard to same the approving authority should have made sure, before granting of approval, that at time of search and thereafter the investigation wing authorities and so also the AO has duly followed the instructions of the Board as laid in the Manual. The aforesaid directions of Board

Manish Pahwa, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 45(2), New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed with consequences to follow as

ITA 3270/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Manish Pahwa, Vs Ito, J-554, Rajouri Garden, Ward-45(2), New Delhi– 110 027. Delhi. Pan: Aaapp0676M

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Gulati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 69Section 69C

cheque and invoice. The AO, however, treated this as a bogus expenditure on the premise that Gopal I.T. International was found by the Investigation Wing to be 6 an accommodation-entry provider. The AO noted that Mr. Gopal Kumar, proprietor, did not file

Singhal Fasteners Company Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 23(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1992/DEL/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 Vs M/S Singhal Fasteners Company Ito Ward-8(4) New Delhi Private Limited 67-68 Rampuri Govind Puri Kalkaji New Delhi-19 Pan No. Aaacs1428H (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 147Section 148

failed to appreciate the fact that the reasons have been recorded by the learned Assessing officer only on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing without any independent application of mind and that the approval have also been given by the Addl. CIT range -8 new Delhi ... Tribunal. 6. The Ld. AR has submitted that the ld. Assessing officer recorded the reason only on the basis of information received from Investigating wing without any independent application of mind and the approval was also granted by the Addl. CIT,. Range -8 New Delhi in a mechanical manner. Reliance

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 1 Kolkata vs. Megapode Vyapar Pvt Ltd

The appeal is dismissed, and the stay petition

ITAT/147/2025HC Calcutta08 Jan 2026

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

Section 260A

taxmann.com 352 (Cal) and also ignoring basic/vital aspects of the complete judgment, which upheld the additions on the basis of the inquiry/findings of Investigation Wing? iv. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal was justified in law to set aside the order

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 1 Kolkata vs. Megapode Vyapar Pvt Ltd

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITAT/146/2025HC Calcutta08 Jan 2026

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

Section 260A

taxmann.com 352 (Cal) and also ignoring basic/vital aspects of the complete judgment, which upheld the additions on the basis of the inquiry/findings of Investigation Wing? v) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal was justified in law to set aside the order

Income Tax Officer, Pune vs. Sagar Construction Company, Pune

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

ITA 1812/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Riya OswalFor Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 37Section 68

emerged during the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act of Shri Sachin Nahar and during search and post search enquiries by the Investigation wing and also during the course of enquiries conducted during search proceedings by the Central Circle – 1(1), Pune that the assessee has received cash ... emerged during the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act of Shri Sachin Nahar and during search and post search enquiries by the Investigation wing and also during the course of enquiries conducted during search proceedings by the Central Circle – 1(1), Pune that the assessee has received cash

M. Shashikant and Co, Mumbai vs. Ward 23(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6599/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened under section 147 on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing pursuant to a search and seizure action conducted by the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation), Mumbai, on 03.10.2013 in the case

Income Tax Officer Ward-3(2)(1)Ahmedabad, Aaykar Bhawan Vejalpur, Ahmedabad vs. Manilal Bhamjibhai Shah, Isanpur Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 670/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M. Vasavda,Sr DR

Section 250Section 69

freight income received from M/s. Electrotherm India Limited u/s 69 of the IT Act, despite the fact that the credible information was received from Investigation Wing ITO Vs. Manilal Bhamjibhai Shah Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 2– that the entity M/s. Electrotherm India Limited was indulging in unscrupulous activities and assessee