← 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

Lilliput Kidwears Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4103/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4103/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Lilliput Kidwears Ltd., Vs Dcit, D-95, Okhla Industrial Area, Circle-4(1), Phase-1, New Delhi-110020 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca3031E Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Manvendra Goyal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.08.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manvendra Goyal, CIT DR
Section 133Section 142(1)Section 143(1)

this case, a survey operation u/s 133 A of the I.T. Act was carried out by the Investigation Wing on 13.10,2011 on the basis of allegation that the assessee company has made fudging of accounts for the F.Y. 2010-11. During the course of survey, certain 2 Lilliput Kidwears

ACIT, CC-3, Surat vs. Shri Naresh Nemchand Shah, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 197/SRT/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.197/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) The Acit, Central Cir.-3, Vs. Naresh Nemchand Shah, Surat. Abhishek House, Bh. Jeevan Bharti School, Kadampali Society, Nanpura, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acrps 0182 J (Assessee)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

black money into the books by various means like Bogus LTCG, Share Capital, unsecured loans etc. Statements had been recorded various times by the Investigation Wing wherein they accepted the same facts and thus, proved as Entry Providers. A survey action u/s.133A of the I.T. Act, 1961 was carried ... market price manipulation mainly by Mr ITA.197/SRT/2020 & CO.16/SRT/2021/AY.2012-13 Naresh Nemchand Shah Ashok Kayan and his various allies. The said person was detected by the investigation wing Kolkata as a bogus entry provider and his statement has been recorded at various times whereby he has himself admitted to be involved

Nakoda Syntex Pvt. Ltd, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(4), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 582/SRT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 44/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) B. G. Jain Investment Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(1), 202, Shyam Apartment, In Kakadia Surat. Complex Lane, Opp. Kakadia Complex, Above Dr. Pokhran’S Clinic, Ghod Dod Road, Surat-395007. E-Mail: Dbjain@Nakodaltd.Com (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacb8848A आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 582/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Nakoda Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), 401, 4Th Floor, Union Trade Centre, Surat. Beside Apple Hospital, Udhna Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat-395002. E-Mail: Dbjain@Gmail.Com (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacn7281K Assessee By Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) 26/07/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Different Assessees, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Section 143(3)

assessee has not been provided statements and information collected behind the back of the assessee, including report of the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation Wing), Mumbai and the report of the inspector. We note that no opportunity to cross examine has been provided to the assessee. For that, reliance ... Jain Investments P. Ltd. & Nakoda Syntex Pvt. Ltd. behind the back of the assessee, including report of the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation Wing), Mumbai and the report of the inspector, no opportunity to cross examine has been provided to the assessee and the assessee submitted

B.G.Jain Investment Pvt.Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 44/SRT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 44/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) B. G. Jain Investment Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(1), 202, Shyam Apartment, In Kakadia Surat. Complex Lane, Opp. Kakadia Complex, Above Dr. Pokhran’S Clinic, Ghod Dod Road, Surat-395007. E-Mail: Dbjain@Nakodaltd.Com (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacb8848A आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 582/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Nakoda Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), 401, 4Th Floor, Union Trade Centre, Surat. Beside Apple Hospital, Udhna Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat-395002. E-Mail: Dbjain@Gmail.Com (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacn7281K Assessee By Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) 26/07/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Different Assessees, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Section 143(3)

assessee has not been provided statements and information collected behind the back of the assessee, including report of the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation Wing), Mumbai and the report of the inspector. We note that no opportunity to cross examine has been provided to the assessee. For that, reliance ... Jain Investments P. Ltd. & Nakoda Syntex Pvt. Ltd. behind the back of the assessee, including report of the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation Wing), Mumbai and the report of the inspector, no opportunity to cross examine has been provided to the assessee and the assessee submitted

The ACIT 4 (1), Indore vs. Shri Lakhan Lal Jaiswal, Indore

ITA 354/IND/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Veena Rawka, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Singi, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148

addition made by the Ld. AO observed as follows: “4.10 It is clear from the above and judicial so discussed above that the investigation wing had forwarded information to the AO. The AO on the basis of that information had reopened the case of the appellant ... these judgments as gathered upon careful considering the same. 11. The assessment order was only on the basis of the Report of the Investigation Wing and no independent application of mind of the Ld. AO is ITA Nos.353&354/Ind/2020 ACIT vs. Shri Lakhan Lal Jaiswal Asst. Years

The ACIT 4 (1) Indore, Indore vs. Shri Lakhan Lal Jaiswal, Indore

ITA 353/IND/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Veena Rawka, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Singi, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148

addition made by the Ld. AO observed as follows: “4.10 It is clear from the above and judicial so discussed above that the investigation wing had forwarded information to the AO. The AO on the basis of that information had reopened the case of the appellant ... these judgments as gathered upon careful considering the same. 11. The assessment order was only on the basis of the Report of the Investigation Wing and no independent application of mind of the Ld. AO is ITA Nos.353&354/Ind/2020 ACIT vs. Shri Lakhan Lal Jaiswal Asst. Years

Income Tax Officer-3(4), Kanpur vs. Shri Saroj Gupta, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 161/LKW/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2015-16

Section 268ASection 5(2)Section 6

case, the prime issue is the sale of shares of a company which was later on established as a penny Stock company by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata and also, as per the observation of the assessing officer in the assessment order, the sale of shares was found

Income Tax Officer-3(3), Kanpur vs. Smt. Pushplata Soni, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 157/LKW/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2012-13

Section 268ASection 5(2)Section 6

case, the prime issue is the sale of shares of a company which was later on established as a penny Stock company by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata and also, as per the observation of the assessing officer in the assessment order, the sale of shares was found

Income Tax Officer-3(3), Kanpur vs. Shri Prateek Gupta, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 156/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2014-15

Section 268ASection 5(2)Section 6

case, the prime issue is the sale of shares of a company which was later on established as a penny Stock company by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata and also, as per the observation of the assessing officer in the assessment order, the sale of shares was found

Vishala Hitesh Loonia, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1668/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Smt. Astha Maniar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 69

Appellant was involved in buying the penny stock, which is similar to shell companies for which various investigations were already carried out by Kolkata Investigation Wing and SEBI Order referred supra hence long term capital in present case is nothing but preconceived scheme to convert the unaccounted money ... Notes, Demat statements and bank statements etc.,, the same could, not be treated as bogus simply on the basis of some report of the Investigation Wing and/or the orders of SEBI in case of entirely different scrip. Moreover it was submitted before us by ld AR.th

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(1), Bangalore vs. Shri. B.M. Jayeshankar, Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 479/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Susan Dolores George CIT(OSD)For Respondent: Shri Nagin Khincha, A.R

basis for the adaptation of total sale by the Assessing Officer is as under: (a) In the course of proceedings by the Investigation Wing, at the premises of Auditor of the buyers some information was found in the computers of the auditor and the printout thereof is at internal Page

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-20 vs. Ms. Kavita Agarwal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/232/2022HC Delhi28 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 68

passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘ITAT’), Delhi in ITA 5858/Del/2018. The facts, in brief are that the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department conducted a search & seizure and survey operations under Section 132/133A This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002947

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-20 vs. Mr. Shiv Kumar Agarwal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/231/2022HC Delhi28 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 68

passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘ITAT’), Delhi in ITA 5280/Del/2018. The facts, in brief are that the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department conducted a search & seizure and survey operations under Section 132/133A This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002946

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-20 vs. Ms. Suman Agarwal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/167/2022HC Delhi28 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 68

passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘ITAT’), Delhi in ITA 5288/Del/2018. The facts, in brief are that the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department conducted a search & seizure and survey operations under Section 132/133A This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002945

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-20 vs. Ms. Suman Agarwal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA-167/2022HC Delhi28 Jul 2022
Section 10(38)Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 68

passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘ITAT’), Delhi in ITA 5288/Del/2018. The facts, in brief are that the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department conducted a search & seizure and survey operations under Section 132/133A 2022:DHC:2945-DB ITA 167/2022 Page

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-20 vs. Mr. Shiv Kumar Agarwal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA-231/2022HC Delhi28 Jul 2022
Section 10(38)Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 68

passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘ITAT’), Delhi in ITA 5280/Del/2018. The facts, in brief are that the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department conducted a search & seizure and survey operations under Section 132/133A 2022:DHC:2946-DB ITA 231/2022 Page

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-20 vs. Ms. Kavita Agarwal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA-232/2022HC Delhi28 Jul 2022
Section 10(38)Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 68

passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘ITAT’), Delhi in ITA 5858/Del/2018. The facts, in brief are that the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department conducted a search & seizure and survey operations under Section 132/133A 2022:DHC:2947-DB ITA 232/2022 Page

Yunicorn Synthetics Mills Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6115/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Hoshang B. Irani
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

reopening and cross examination. Particularly on the issue of reliance by the Assessing Officer on the third party information and the statement received from Investigation Wing. 9. In the similar situation Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M/s. Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd., (supra) held as under ... Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee stating: "Thus, the entire disallowance in this case is based on third party information gathered by the Investigation Wing of the Department, which have not been independently subjected to further verification by the AO who has not provided the copy of such statements

Mukesh Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. I.T.O. Ward 1(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 321/JPR/2021[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jul 2022AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 271E

before issue of notice u/s. 148. Thereafter the AO had mechanically issued notice u/s 148 on the basis of information received by him from Investigation Wing. (6) Bull Riders Financial Services (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2020) 207 TTJ (Del) 573: Full and true disclosure- AO having re-opened ... assess00 chargeable to tax had escaped assessment was unreasonable and irrational as it could not be related to underlining information received from Investigation Wing. Further sanction order passed by respondent No. 2 under section 151 simply contains the endorsement "approved which is not a valid. (8) Sharvah Multitrade Company

Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC -2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 7163/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle-2(4), 2Nd Floor, Johari Mansion, 259, Mumbai. Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Cc-2(1), 2Nd Floor, Johri Mansion, 259, 9Th Floor, New Pratiksha Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Shukla, CIT-DR
Section 68

section 133A of the Income Tax Act Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was carried out by was carried out by the Investigation Wing Investigation Wing of the Income-tax Department ax Department Mumbai on19.03.2015 alongwith 19.03.2015 alongwith search action at the premises of the search action ... survey action from the Based on the information received of survey action from the Based on the information received of survey action from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, the , Mumbai, the Assessing Officer Assessing Officer reopened the assessment after recording reasons to believe that income escape nt after recording reasons