← 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

Deepak Srichand Bathija, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2104/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Br. Baskaran & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2104/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Deepak Srichand Bathija बिधम/ Nfac, Delhi 5-B, Elegant Apartment, 3 Room No. 356, Cr Vs. Sobhani Road, Colaba, Building, New Delhi. Mumbai-400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapb6001A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H. S. Raheja Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chogule (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.07.2022 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income Of Ay. 2014-15 On 30.07.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.42,24,780/-. Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Was Taken Up For Scrutiny By Issuing Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) On 18.09.2015. The Ao During Assessment Proceedings Noted That Assessee Is Involved In The Business Of Finance & Brokerage & Derives Income From Business, Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) & Other Sources. The Ao Noted That Assessee Has Earned Ltcg Of Rs.32,09,789/- From Sale Of Shares & Payment Was Received From His Share Broker. & Out Of This Rs.19,23,000/- Was Earned As Ltcg From Sale Of Shares Between 12.11.2013 To 16.12.2013 Of M/S. Kailash Auto

For Appellant: Shri H. S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chogule (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)

payment through banking channels along with bank statements etc. It is noted that the authorities below have relied merely on the report of investigation wing and interim-report of SEBI by ignoring the relevant facts on record. In this case, it is a matter of record that when called upon ... KAFL is not existing as per the final order of the SEBI (supra). 12. The AO has also relied on the report of the investigation wing and/or the statement of the several third party/persons recorded by the investigation wing in connection with the alleged bogus transaction in the shares