“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

Hillwood Imports and Exports (P) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Incometax

ITA/255/2019HC Kerala13 Oct 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

For Appellant: HILLWOOD IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (P) LTDFor Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

these documents seized and contents of these documents have been elaborated by the AO in the assessment order. During the post search investigation, the Investigation Wing received information that the books of accounts are also maintained at a different premise, which was under the control of Shri Riyaz

Hillwood Imports and Exports (P) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/259/2019HC Kerala13 Oct 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

For Appellant: HILLWOOD IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (P) LTDFor Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Hillwood Imports and Exports Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/256/2019HC Kerala13 Oct 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

For Appellant: HILLWOOD IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (P) LTDFor Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Hillwood Imports and Exports Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/258/2019HC Kerala13 Oct 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

For Appellant: HILLWOOD IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (P) LTDFor Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Sunita Chaudhry, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 18(3) (4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vimalchand PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh

Section 10(38)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

dated 27/12/2017 passed under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act after, inter-alia, referring to information gathered and collected from the investigation wing pertaining to survey action conducted in the case of company, i.e. First Financial Services Ltd, in whose shares assessee had transacted, statement recorded

Phoenix International Freight Services P. Ltd( Now Known As As C.H. Robinson International (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3206/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shripavankumargadale,Judicialmember & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Phoenix Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of International Freight Income Tax, Range-2(1) Services Pvt. Ltd. (Now Mumbai-400050 Known As C.H. Robinson International (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Excom House 7, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400072 Pan No.Aabce0443R Appellant Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee is one of the beneficiary. The Assessing officer (AO) after recording the reasons that the fraudulent transactions of accommodation entries were reported by investigating wing and has reason to believe that the income has escaped the Assesseement and issued notice under Section 148 of the Act. In reply ... Sales Agencies; Pvt. Ltd. An action u/s.132 of the Act was carried out in the premises of the said Mr. Sandeep Satani by the investigation wing of the I.T. Department. The said Mr. Satani confessed that he was not engaged in any real business and that he had been providing

Prabha Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT Cir-6, Jaipur

ITA 164/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: The Date Of Appeal Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 134ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69C

company with a very small capital base but its market capitalization is many times of its capital base. In the statement recorded by the Investigation Wing, Shri Anil Kumar Khemka and Shri Jai Kishan Poddar, Directors of the share broking companies admitted about complete procedure of pre-arranged LTCG entries

Prabha Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle -6, Jaipur

ITA 163/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: The Date Of Appeal Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 134ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69C

Noble Tradelink Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Ward 1(5), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 302/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 148Section 68

erred in issuing notice u/s 148 of the IT. Act on the basis of information from the Investigation wing only without application of mind and analysing the basic facts of the case. The notice issued on the basis of borrowed satisfaction is illegal and void and consequently assessment based ... mind to arrive at believe that income of the assessee has escaped assessment. Hence, the reopening of assessment only at the instance of Investigation Wing, Mumbai is illegal and bad in law. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the following cases: 1. Reynolds Shirting Ltd. vs ACIT

DCIT, Central CIT-2(4), Chennai vs. A Gandhimathi, Kancheepuram

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 15/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.13-15/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner Of- V. Smt. A. Gandhimathi, Income Tax, Prop: East West Gandhimathi Central Circle-2(4), Combined Industries, Investigation Building, Survey No.503/2A2A, Chennai. Mambakkam Salai, Echankadu, Kayar, Kancheepuram District. [Pan: Agupa 2409 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.Guru Bashyam, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr.Philip George, Adv. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2022

For Appellant: Mr.Philip George, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Guru Bashyam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 158B

director as well as the employees made a general statement about receipt of on-money with reference to a question posed by the Investigation wing ITA Nos.13-15/Chny/2019 Smt. A. Gandhimathi :: 13 :: without any reference to particular seized material found as a result of search. Similarly, the AO has taken circumstantial

DCIT, Central CIT-2(4), Chennai vs. A Gandhimathi, Kancheepuram

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 14/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr.Philip George, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Guru Bashyam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 158B

DCIT, Central CIT-2(4), Chennai vs. A Gandhimathi, Kancheepuram

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 13/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr.Philip George, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Guru Bashyam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 158B

ACIT CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Shreyas Vasant Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1580/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1580/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit, Cc-7(1) बिधम/ Shreyas Vasant Parikh R. No.676B, 6Th Floor, 5 Raj Mayur, 19Th Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Khar (W), Mumbai- Road, Road, Mumbai- 400052. 400020. Cross Objection No. 30/Mum/2022 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1580/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Shreyas Vasant Parikh Acit, Cc-7(1) बिधम/ 5 Raj Mayur, 19Th Road, R. No.676B, 6Th Floor, Vs. Khar (W), Mumbai-400052. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Road, Mumbai- 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepp1118J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. R. Choksi Revenue By: Shri Amit Kumar Soni सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri V. R. ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni

Section 153CSection 68

place in the confiscated pen-drives of the excel sheet. Undisputedly when the Pen drive in question was seized by the investigation wing and examined it only showed that the same (excel sheet) was modified last on 27.07.2016 at 12.12 hrs. Other than the admission made by Shri Tukaram about ... 30/31/07.2016. And we also note that the name/short form of the assessee did not feature in the excel sheet when seized by the investigation wing and also we note that Shri Tukaram has stated to a question that short-form of SP referred to in the excel- sheet

Manmohan Didwania, Mumbai vs. ITO 30(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is fully disallowed

ITA 4495/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalmanmohan Didwania M/S Hanuman Trading Corporation, 1-B-5 Rahul Chs, Marve Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064. Pan: Aaepd1249E ...... Appellant Vs. Ito- 30(2)(4), Room No. 609, C-13, Bandra Kurla Compex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-41, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 26.04.2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37Section 68

statement i.e. to without any corroborative evidence to substantiate the retraction. The statement of Mr Dharmender Kumar Babel along with the report of the investigation wing clearly established the modus operandi and so-called business model of the lender company. Moreover, M/s Rajat Diamond Exim

DCIT, Circle -1, Jaipur vs. P.R. Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the department are allowed

ITA 171/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Mantri, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

accommodation entry taken from one M/s School of Human Genetics and Population Health which was confirmed during the survey action conducted u/s 133A by Investigation Wing of Kolkata.? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing deduction ... Account and the balance of Rs. 75,00,000/- had been claimed in the computation of income. A report was received from Investigation Wing, Kolkata that a survey action 133A was conducted in the following research organization which had approval u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act- Name

DCIT, Circle-1, Jaipur vs. P.R. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the department are allowed

ITA 170/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Mantri, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

Shradha Estate Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1626/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shrikuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalshradha Estate Pvt. Ltd., 3, New Bake Bihari Building, 24Th Road, Khar (West), Opp. Khar Tel Ex, Mumbai-40052. Pan: Aabcs4961J ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-5(3)(2), Room No. 583, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. Ashish Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(2)

unearthed. As a result of investigation individuals who have taken such entry of bogus LTCG/STCL have been identified. iv) During investigation by Kolkata investigation wing statements of one Mr Anuj Agarwal and Mr Sanjay Vohra were recorded by the DDIT Investigation Kolkata. Both the persons confirmed that shares of Nikki ... Looking at the fact as enumerated in Para (vi) and (iv) mentioned supra together with the fact as narrated in the report of the investigation wing Kolkata, revealed that the transaction was devoid of any commercial nature and fell in realm of not being bonafide. 3. Ground

Shri Krishna Gupta, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Inocme Tax Central Circle -2(3), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 110/NAG/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. LoyaFor Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153A

impugned order. Further, I note that the assessee provided the details of such acquisition and which was examined by the Investigation Wing before the completion of proceedings u/s. 153A of the Act. Further, it is also observed copy of share holding of both the companies is also enclosed

DCIT, Bhubaneswar vs. Serajuddin & Co., Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 368/CTK/2015[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack30 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpia

order was passed in gross violation of the mandatory provision of Section 132(9A), requiring handing over of seized books of account/materials by the Investigation Wing to the AO within the specified period and the said provision of law is not affected by the amendment made in Section 132A ... relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) are misplaced inasmuch as the same position that in the appellant's case the concerned officers of Investigation Wing (excluding Assessing Officers of Central Circles) were not conferred with the powers to do assessment. 2. For that on the facts

M/S Om Contractor and Engineers, Sangrur vs. PCIT, Patiala

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

ITA 485/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjit Singh, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 44A

work claimed to have been carried out by the assessee firm and that the AO had just relied upon the information available from the investigation wing and had passed the assessment order without conducting any relevant inquiries. It was the Ld. PCIT’s observation that the conclusion