← 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

Kugel Developers Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle II(4), Chennai

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

ITA 348/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

inspite of the submissions made by the AR of the appellant in confronting the remand report. A physical verification was conducted by the investigation wing of the Department; b) the Ld. CIT(A)(C)-11 has also erred in ignoring the vital facts reported by the investigation wing which clearly ... have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant vis-a vis the facts finding report as per the enquiries were conducted through the investigation wing as also the facts recorded in the assessment order, as discussed above. The appellant has mainly been harping about the time lag between the development

ITO Corporate Ward 2(2), Chennai vs. Genda Builders Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 2033/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

inspite of the submissions made by the AR of the appellant in confronting the remand report. A physical verification was conducted by the investigation wing of the Department; b) the Ld. CIT(A)(C)-11 has also erred in ignoring the vital facts reported by the investigation wing which clearly ... have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant vis-a vis the facts finding report as per the enquiries were conducted through the investigation wing as also the facts recorded in the assessment order, as discussed above. The appellant has mainly been harping about the time lag between the development

Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1835/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

inspite of the submissions made by the AR of the appellant in confronting the remand report. A physical verification was conducted by the investigation wing of the Department; b) the Ld. CIT(A)(C)-11 has also erred in ignoring the vital facts reported by the investigation wing which clearly ... have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant vis-a vis the facts finding report as per the enquiries were conducted through the investigation wing as also the facts recorded in the assessment order, as discussed above. The appellant has mainly been harping about the time lag between the development

Dharma Promoters Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 1(4), Chennai

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

ITA 2514/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

inspite of the submissions made by the AR of the appellant in confronting the remand report. A physical verification was conducted by the investigation wing of the Department; b) the Ld. CIT(A)(C)-11 has also erred in ignoring the vital facts reported by the investigation wing which clearly ... have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant vis-a vis the facts finding report as per the enquiries were conducted through the investigation wing as also the facts recorded in the assessment order, as discussed above. The appellant has mainly been harping about the time lag between the development

Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2513/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

inspite of the submissions made by the AR of the appellant in confronting the remand report. A physical verification was conducted by the investigation wing of the Department; b) the Ld. CIT(A)(C)-11 has also erred in ignoring the vital facts reported by the investigation wing which clearly ... have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant vis-a vis the facts finding report as per the enquiries were conducted through the investigation wing as also the facts recorded in the assessment order, as discussed above. The appellant has mainly been harping about the time lag between the development

Dharma Promoters Pvt Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2085/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

inspite of the submissions made by the AR of the appellant in confronting the remand report. A physical verification was conducted by the investigation wing of the Department; b) the Ld. CIT(A)(C)-11 has also erred in ignoring the vital facts reported by the investigation wing which clearly ... have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant vis-a vis the facts finding report as per the enquiries were conducted through the investigation wing as also the facts recorded in the assessment order, as discussed above. The appellant has mainly been harping about the time lag between the development