“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

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 177/JPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 116/JPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Diwakar Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby allowed

ITA 2397/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

notices, the assessee filed its submission and after considering the submission made by assessee and also taking into consideration, the information received from the Investigation Wing, the ld. AO viewed that entire amount of Rs. 3.97 crores loan was not genuine transaction but it was mere entries made

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 13 Kolkata vs. Sri Soumitra Joshi

The appeal is partly allowed

ITAT/121/2023HC Calcutta05 Jun 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

Section 147Section 148A

earlier, there are basically three allegations against the assessee. In the first set of allegations, the basis is a report drawn by the Investigation Wing of the Department pursuant to a search operation conducted with Raj Group and others and Goenka of Calcutta. Admittedly, the basis of the information pertaining ... matter is remanded back to the assessing officer with a direction to afford an opportunity to furnish the information based on which the investigation wing of the department seeks to rope in the assessee in the case of Raj Group and Ors. and Sri Girdharilal Goenka and after furnishing

DCIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Philips India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1939/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154

aside. In this case, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and thereafter the AO received the information from Investigation Wing that the assessee has received bogus loans in the form of accommodation entries and on that basis the case of the assessee wasreopened. In the case of Rajivraj Ranbirsingh

M/S Philips India Limited (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1285/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154

Jamal Mohideen Haroon Imran Khan, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non-Cororate Ward-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 452/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.452/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jamal Mohideen Haroon Imran Khan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 15/7, Vijayaragava Road First Street, Non Corporate Ward 1(2), T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan:Aaopi4540B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi Dated 23.06.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 227 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit By Stating As Under: 1. I Am An Individual & Petitioner/Appellant In The Impugned Proceedings Before This Hon’Ble Tribunal. I Am Well Acquainted With The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148

Subsequently, the assessee filed another return on 20.08.2014 admitting an income of ₹.9,70,400/- under various heads. As per the information from the Investigation Wing, Chennai that the assessee has received funds aggregating ₹.79.74 lakhs, which includes demand drafts deposits totalling ₹.49 lakhs, cash of ₹.16.24 lakhs and also

Maxtech Realty Pvt. Ltd(Formerly Known As Nandivardhan Construction Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-2, Thane

ITA 690/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain & Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 153(3)Section 153ASection 250

change of opinion. Further the AO without making specific inquiry before reopening of the case merely relied on the information received from the Investigation Wing and without corroborating the same, reopened the case on borrowed satisfaction which is not permissible in the eyes of law as well as judicial precedents

ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. G Trade and Capital Venture Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, application

ITA 3211/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3033 To 3038/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th 8/9 Bokadia Industrial Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, Estate Waliv, Sativali Road, Mumbai-400020. Vasai East Vasai Palghar-401 208. Pan No. Aabcg 3313 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S G Trade & Capital Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, 6 G Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020. New Linking Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aadcg 7583 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Abhishek Doshi, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3122/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anil SatheFor Respondent: Shri Pratap N. Sharma

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

assessee was holding the shares. However, from the perusal of the assessment order, it is evident that neither in the findings of the Investigation Wing, referred by the AO from pages 4-6 of the assessment order, nor in the statements of beneficiaries and entry providers recorded during the aforesaid ... through whom the shares were sold, there is no evidence on record that even these shareholders were named in the investigation conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Department. It is also pertinent to note that the AO has not given any adverse comments or drawn adverse inferences

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, application

ITA 3038/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, application

ITA 3037/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, application

ITA 3036/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, application

ITA 3035/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, application

ITA 3034/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, application

ITA 3033/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Maneken Keshvalla Patel, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, Delhi

ITA 1107/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Maneken Keshvalla Patel, National Faceless Appeal 1 Manekkunj, Anandpur Vas Centre (Nfac) Vs. At Pundhara Ta : Mansa- Income Tax Department, 382855 Gandhiangar, Gujarat Ministry Of Finance, India-382855 Delhi-110001. Pan No. Alfpp 7410 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mehul Talera, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Mehul Talera, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Rs.63,76,868/- deserves to be deleted. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on receipt of the information from the Investigation Wing about the banking transactions carried out through one bank account in the name of assessee maintained with ICICI bank , the Assessing Officer issued notice

Ken Financial Services Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 4, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 894/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanvk-Vk-La- 894@Eaqcbz@2021 ¼Fu-Oa- 2010&11½ Ken Financial Services Ltd. 101, Shah Arcade, A Wing, Shah Archade Sra Chs Ltd Rani Sati Marg, Malad (E) Mumbai-400 097 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaack4929K Cuke Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Rahul Hakani izfroknh }kjk@For Respondent: Shri Byomakesh P. K. Panda, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

relevant extract of the notice reads as under: P a g e | 6 KEN FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. “3. It was informed by the Investigation Wing that the assessee company had taken loans from entities operated by Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt. It was also reported that the assessee company had repaid

Vijayakumar Kanaiyalal Matta, Mumbai vs. ITO 26 (3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 53/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhvk-Vk-La- 52@Eaqcbz@2020 ¼Fu-Oa- 2013&14½ Vk-Vk-La- 53@Eaqcbz@2020 ¼Fu-Oa- 2014&15½ Vijaykumar Kanaiyalal Matta 8/B/104, 10Th Floor, S. S. Nagar, Sion Koliwada, Sion Mumbai-400 037 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aropm6060D Cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer – 26(3) (4) Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan, B. K. C. Bandra (E), ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 051

For Appellant: Shri Tejveer Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar Singh, Sr. AR

Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 69

recorded without proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer (AO). The assessment has been reopened merely on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing. The P a g e | 4 ITA No.53/MUM/2020 (A.Y.2014-15) VIJAYKUMAR KANAIYALAL MATTA assessment has been reopened without any cogent material on record, hence, reopening ... Total 47.00 It is not simpliciter on the information received from Investigation Wing that the AO re-opened assessment. Though, the belief of the AO stemmed from information from Investigation Wing, the AO further gathered information through AIR on another issue. After receipt of information, the same was examined

Vijayakumar Kanaiyalal Matta, Mumbai vs. ITO 26 (3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 52/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tejveer Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar Singh, Sr. AR

Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 69