“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

ACIT, Circle-52(1), New Delhi vs. Arun Sankhwal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9856/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 131Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

concealed its particulars of income which was detected during the course of proceedings u/s 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the investigation wing. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied ... declared/surrendered the amount in question when he was confronted during the course of proceedings u/s 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the investigation wing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee filed a return for the year under consideration i.e. Assessment Year

Sumeera Banadey, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 69(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 2090/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reopening of the assessment are filed at page-13 of the PB in which the A.O. has recorded that as per information received from Investigation Wing search was carried-out on 27.06.2013 in Santosh Medical College Group of Institutions and Dr. P. Maha Lingam, who was Chairman/Director of this Institution ... appellate order, in which, in Ground No.6, assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.19,75,000/-. He has submitted that A.O. or the Investigation Wing have not supplied copy of the 8 | P a g e AY: 2010-11 statement of Dr P Mahalingam to him for rebutting his statement

Zydus Healthcare Limited, Ahmedabad vs. PCIT, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 180/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

findings regarding transfer pricing issues in respect of international transactions or specified domestic transactions or both have been recorded by the Investigation Wing or the AO”. 8. Explaining the above condition, he submitted that clause (a) of the Instructions under Serial No. 3.3 would be attracted if it came ... provisions of the Income Tax Act and finding regarding transfer pricing issue in respect of international or specific domestic transaction have been recorded by Investigation Wing. But in the case of assessee, neither any survey nor any search has been carried out. He emphasized that at the most, only clause

DCIT Central Cir (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Raksha Bullion, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 376/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyaldcit, Cc-2(1), 804, 8Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400057. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S Raksha Bullion, 134/136, Moti Building, 3Rd Floor, S.M. Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Aahfr2224C ..... Assessee C.O. No. 78/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) M/S Raksha Bullion, 134/136, Moti Building, 3Rd Floor, S.M. Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Aahfr2224C ..... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Cc-2(1), 804, 8Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400057. ...... Assessee Appellant/Revenue By : Sh. Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit-Dr Respondent/Assessee By : Sh. Vimal Punmiya, Ca Date Of Hearing : 26/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022

For Appellant: Sh. Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

respect to addition of Rs.1 crore u/s 69A, the AO has only relied upon the statement of Mr. Ashit B Doshi recorded by the Investigation wing and ignored various documentary evidence submitted before him. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, invocation of sec 69A is incorrect and cannot be sustained

Bugget Impex, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(1) (2), Mumbai

ITA 1775/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Mrugakshi Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta, D.R

DHARAM 2031674/- 4. DHARAM 4952848/- 5. MANIPRABHA 5490633/- 6. MANIPRABHA 12547531/- TOTAL 26221909/- 3. On the basis of findings given by the investigation wing, Assessing Officer(AO) show caused assessee who has furnished requisite details along with explanation. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee, the AO proceeded to hold

Dy.CIT Cent. Cir 5(3), Mumbai vs. Kalpataru Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are stand dismissed

ITA 1448/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1447 & 1448/Mum/2022 (A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Kalpataru Limited Income Tax, Central Mumbai - 400055 Circle-5(3) Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaack2108K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Tejinder Pal Singh Anand Date Of Hearing 03.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-53, Mumbai, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act. Since Similar Facts & Identical Issue Are Involved, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience Both Appeals Are Adjudicated Together. We Shall Take Ita No. 1448/Mum/2022 As A Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied As Mutatis Mutandis To Other Appeal. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 131Section 143(3)

reproduced above. In the remand report, the AO has not furnished the copies of the relevant information or material, which was received from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai ITA Nos. 1447 & 1448/Mum/2022 A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 5 The DCIT, CC-5(3) Vs. Kalpataru Limited and on the basis ... remand report the A.O has not furnished the copies of relevant information or material which was received from the investigation wing on the basis of which the addition had been made in respect of cash loan and interest payment. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record

DCIT Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai vs. Kalpataru Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are stand dismissed

ITA 1447/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 131Section 143(3)

Uday K Lapsia, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(3), Mumbai

ITA 1203/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Singh

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35(1)(ii)

proceedings were initiated against the Appellant and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 23.03.2017 after information was received from the Investigation Wing Kolkata that the Appellant has obtained bogus donation receipts from SHGPH. The re-assessment proceedings culminated into the order, dated 29.11.2017 ITA. No. 1203/Mum/2020

Subhshree Investment Management P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2208/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: For Revenue : Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 37

seizure operation under section 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of Priyagold Group of assessees on 16.12.2014 by Investigation Wing, Delhi. Consequent to the search, proceedings under section 153C read with Section 153A of the I.T. Act, 1961 was initiated in the case ... assessee. The A.O, thereafter, has noted that information was received from Investigation Wing, Kolkata that a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was conducted upon the assessee on 19.11.2015. Hence, the proceedings initiated under section 153C r.w.s. 153A

ITO, Ward- 21(4), New Delhi vs. Rukmini Iron Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 550/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Vs. Rukmini Iron Pvt. Ltd., Ward-21(4), X-55/102, Loha Mandi, New Delhi. Naraina, Delhi. Pan: Aaccr7910H Co No.66/Del/2018 (Ita No.550/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Rukmini Iron Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, X-55/102, Loha Mandi, Ward-21(4), Naraina, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan: Aaccr7910H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.10.2017 Of The Cit(A)-38, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2009-10. In This Case, The Assessee Has Filed A Cross Objection. Co No.66/Del/2018 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:- “1. "On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 2,40,00,000/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of Income Tax Act, 1961, Ignoring The Decision Of The Ld. Cit (A) In The Case Of Surender Kumar Jain (S. K. Jain) Wherein, It Is Held That Jain Brothers Are Equally Involved In The Accommodation Entry Business & Maintain The Documents & Record. " 2. "On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs 2,40,00,000/- Under Section 68 Of The Act By Ignoring The Ratio Decidendi In The Case Of Cit Vs. M/S N. R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (2014), 2 Itr-Ol-68 & Pcit-7 Vs. Bikram Singh In It A No. 55/2017 Dated 25/08/2017 On Identical Issue Of Addition As Unexplained Share Capital U/S 68 Of The It Act. 3 The Appellant Craves To Be Allowed To Add & Alter Any Fresh Grounds(S) Of Appealand/Or Delete Or Amend Any Of The Ground(S) Of Appeal."

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 68

were based on mistakes of facts; (vi) The AO has initiated action u/s 147 of the Act based on the information forwarded by the Investigation Wing on 14.03.2013 related to search operation in the case of Shri S.K. Jain group on 14.09.2010 and the material found in search indicated involvement ... case where there is a new tangible material in the hands of the assessee received in the form of information from the Investigation Wing that the assessee has taken accommodation entries from Shri S.K. Jain and his brothers, then, the action of the AO of initiating reassessment proceedings

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack vs. Sri Srinibash Sahoo, Keonjhar

ITA 288/CTK/2017[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack19 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.288/Ctk/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-2008) Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Vs Sri Srinibash Sahoo, Station Road, Barbil, Keonjhar, Odisha Pan No. : Ahwps 4880 K & Cross Objection No.28/Ctk/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.288/Ctk/2017) (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-2008) Sri Srinibash Sahoo, Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Station Road, Barbil, Keonjhar, Odisha Pan No. : Ahwps 4880 K (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 148Section 153A

based companies were not mentioned anywhere in the assessment order. He was also aggrieved with the fact that details of inquiries made by the Investigation Wing of Kolkata were not mentioned in the assessment order. He was further aggrieved with the fact that no attempt was made to locate these

M/S. Bhavi Leasing & Finance Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Vadodara

ITA 994/AHD/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2006-07 M/S. Bhavi Leasing & Finance Ltd. Ito, Ward-1(1) 36/3, Sindhi Commercial Market Vs Baroda. Kalupur Ahmedabad 380 001. Pan : Aaacb 9407 F

For Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

assessment, there was a search u/s 132 of the IT Act in the case of Pradip Overseas Group on 21.09.2010 by the Investigation Wing, Ahmedabad. During the course of search & seizure proceedings, Shri Pradip Kumar J Karla, in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the IT Act, admitted that ... that a search u/s 132 of the I. T. Act was carried out in the case of Pradip Overseas group on 21.09.2010 by the investigation wing Ahmedabad. During the course of search proceedings Shri Pradip Kumar J Karla, in his statement recorded

Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -3, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

ITA 78/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.78/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap, The Assistant A-2, N-4, Cidco, Aurangabad, Vs Commissioner Of Income Maharashtra – 431001. Tax, Circle-3, Aurangabad. Pan: Auips 4177 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe & Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad, Dated 13.11.2018 For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner (A), Aurangabad Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,93.17.241/- Made By The A.O. In Computing The Income U/S 56 Instead Of Exempt U S. 10(38) Of The Act Of The Appellant Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10(38)Section 56

accommodation entry of bogus LTCG. He has also admitted that he has given accommodation entries in various scripts including PS IT. 13. Further, the Investigation Wing at Aurangabad has informed that during the course of investigation on 02/09/2015, in his statement recorded u/s 131 of the Income ... transactions were sham ones and that this entire edifice was only a colorable device used to evade tax. ………… 19.1 Considering the findings of the Investigation wing of Income tax department, Findings of SEBI & inquiries conducted in the case of brokers, operators and the entry providers and the nature of transaction

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6377/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

under: “A survey under section 133A of Income tax act 1961 in the case of KSL/Tayal Group cases was carried out by the investigation wing, Mumbai on 10/09/2013. The information from the investigation wing has been received as under: 2. It was found that M/s. Ginger Enterprises Ltd has shown ... unaccounted purchases and claimed depreciation on plant and machinery, which were found to be bogus. Accordingly, on the basis of information received from the investigation wing, reassessment proceedings in the case of assessee were initiated. In ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers