← 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

Shri Gajendra Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 588/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli, D.R
Section 132Section 153A

reached the conclusion that assessee has owned up the seized material in his statement recorded on oath before investigation wing and during assessment proceedings and thereby made the addition of the undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee on ITA Nos.585/M/2018 & ors. 7 Shri Gajendra Sanghvi substantive basis

Shri Gajendra Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 587/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli, D.R
Section 132Section 153A

reached the conclusion that assessee has owned up the seized material in his statement recorded on oath before investigation wing and during assessment proceedings and thereby made the addition of the undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee on ITA Nos.585/M/2018 & ors. 7 Shri Gajendra Sanghvi substantive basis

Gajendra Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

ITA 586/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli, D.R
Section 132Section 153A

reached the conclusion that assessee has owned up the seized material in his statement recorded on oath before investigation wing and during assessment proceedings and thereby made the addition of the undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee on ITA Nos.585/M/2018 & ors. 7 Shri Gajendra Sanghvi substantive basis

Shri Gajendra Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 585/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli, D.R
Section 132Section 153A

reached the conclusion that assessee has owned up the seized material in his statement recorded on oath before investigation wing and during assessment proceedings and thereby made the addition of the undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee on ITA Nos.585/M/2018 & ors. 7 Shri Gajendra Sanghvi substantive basis

Sagar Enterprise, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle-3(2), Surat

In the result, ground No.2 raised by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 188/SRT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.188/Srt/2021(Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Sagar Enterprise Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No.12 To 17, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Vs Sky High Building, Opp. Room No.410, 4Thfloor, Mehta Petrol Pump, Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Casanagar, Katargam, Surat- Majura Gate, Opp. New 395004 Civil Hospital, Surat- Pan : Abxfs 0146 H 395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

DCIT 77 taxmann.com 185 (Guj), on similar set of facts held that when after scrutiny assessment the Assessing Officer received information from Investigation Wing that well known entry operators of Country provided bogus entries to various beneficiaries, and assessee was one of such beneficiary, the Assessing Officer was justified ... doubted by Assessing Officer. And the assessing officer made the disallowance @ 25% of purchase shown from Daksh Diamonds on the basis of information of investigation wing. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer, without giving any specific finding. We find that the assessee is in the business

M/S. Mahendra Auto Services (Deemed AOP), Dhule vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 810/PUN/2016[BP: 1988-89 to 10/07/1997]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2022

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.810/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Block Period : 1988-89 To 10.07.1997 Mahendra Auto Services (Aop), The Assistant Commissioner C/O.Gopinath Manohar Wadi, 29, Vs Of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Vaibhav Road, Dhule-424001. Dhule. Pan: Aaaam 6249 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Milind Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 04/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022

Section 158Section 158B

search warrant is not sustainable in law. 12) As per the categorical finding given by the CIT(A) after carrying detailed verification from the Investigation Wing and A.O., prior to search action, the Dept, was not in possession of any information/ material which could have led the Dept, to issue

Shiva Shakti Enclaves Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) 49, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 17/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shiva Shakti Enclaves Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Raigad Darshan (Appeals)–49 Oppsite Indian Oil Company, 605, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vs. J.P. Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai-400 050 Mumbai-400 053 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aagcs5014B Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma, DR
Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(C)Section 68

application money, no reassessment proceedings can be initiated just to make an enquiry or verification, the reassessment is initiated on the information received from investigation wing and no independent enquiry has been made by the AO, reassessment has been initiated by the AO when he has reason to suspect ... believe that certain income escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee. We find that Ld. AO was clinched with tangible information from investigation wing which suggested possible escapement of income in the hands of the assessee. In our opinion, nothing more was required at this Shiva Shakti Enclave

ITO Ward - 32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. S.K. Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 98/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalito Ward-32(1)(1), Room No. 703, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai-400051 ...... Appellant Vs. S.K. Developers, 101, Borivali Ashirwad Chsl, Ram Mandir Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai-400091. Pan: Aatfs1409A ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Indira Adakil, Cit-Dr Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing : 12/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Indira Adakil, CIT-DRFor Respondent: None
Section 132

98/Mum/2021- S.K. Developers were carried out in the case of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain group on 03.10.2013 by the DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai. The Investigation Wing, Mumbai covered certain name sake/dummy Directors/partners/proprietors of various concerns that were being actually managed, controlled and operated by Shri Bhanwarlal Jain Group under section

Ayush Multitrade Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 12(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 392/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalayush Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. Mehta House, A/F-3, Cama Industrial Estate, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063 Pan: Aajca0364M ...... Appellant Vs. The Ito, Ward-12(1)(2), Room No. 146A, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Sanjiv M. Shah & Rajesh Chamaria Respondent By : Sh. Indira Adakil, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjiv M. Shah & Rajesh ChamariaFor Respondent: Sh. Indira Adakil, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

confirming re opening of assessment without appreciating the fact that the assessment was re-opened solely on the basis of information received from investigation wing and there was no corroborative evidence available with the AO form an opinion that income had escaped in the case of appellant company

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -15, Kolkata vs. Shri Maliram Agarwal

The appeal is allowed and the substantial

ITAT/37/2020HC Calcutta06 Jul 2022

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

Section 10(38)Section 260A

Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was erroneous in law when it failed to give credence to investigations made by the Assessing Officer, Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department as well as SEBI on astronomical rise in prices of shares of Companies which have no net worth

Nishat Ara, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 65/LKW/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jul 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

made the statements, before using these statements to make additions in the case of the assessee. In this case, the statement and reports of investigation wing of the Department used by the Revenue for making the additions in the assessment was never confronted to the assessee. The law on this ... reads as under: “21. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the Assessing officer was carried away by the report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata. It can be seen that the entire assessment has been framed by the Assessing Officer without conducting any enquiry from the relevant parties

Zain Alam, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- II, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 64/LKW/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jul 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

made the statements, before using these statements to make additions in the case of the assessee. In this case, the statement and reports of investigation wing of the Department used by the Revenue for making the additions in the assessment was never confronted to the assessee. The law on this ... reads as under: “21. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the Assessing officer was carried away by the report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata. It can be seen that the entire assessment has been framed by the Assessing Officer without conducting any enquiry from the relevant parties

Nausheen Farah, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 63/LKW/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jul 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

made the statements, before using these statements to make additions in the case of the assessee. In this case, the statement and reports of investigation wing of the Department used by the Revenue for making the additions in the assessment was never confronted to the assessee. The law on this ... reads as under: “21. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the Assessing officer was carried away by the report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata. It can be seen that the entire assessment has been framed by the Assessing Officer without conducting any enquiry from the relevant parties

Shaheen Rabia, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -II, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 62/LKW/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jul 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

made the statements, before using these statements to make additions in the case of the assessee. In this case, the statement and reports of investigation wing of the Department used by the Revenue for making the additions in the assessment was never confronted to the assessee. The law on this ... reads as under: “21. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the Assessing officer was carried away by the report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata. It can be seen that the entire assessment has been framed by the Assessing Officer without conducting any enquiry from the relevant parties

Marghoob Alam, Kanpur vs. Dcut, CC-II, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 61/LKW/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jul 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

made the statements, before using these statements to make additions in the case of the assessee. In this case, the statement and reports of investigation wing of the Department used by the Revenue for making the additions in the assessment was never confronted to the assessee. The law on this ... reads as under: “21. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the Assessing officer was carried away by the report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata. It can be seen that the entire assessment has been framed by the Assessing Officer without conducting any enquiry from the relevant parties

Vimala Kawad, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 233/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. Uttamchand Jain, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri M. Rajan,CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

assessment year 2011-12 after reopening the assessment. The reopening was done on the basis of information received from the investigation wing of the Income Tax Department, Kolkata that the various beneficiaries who have taken accommodation entries in term of long term capital gain, short term capital gain

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Archive Realty Developers Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 456/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit, Central Circle – 5(1) V. M/S. Archive Realty Developers Ltd., Room No. 1928, 19Th Floor 324, Master Mind-Iv, Royal Palms Air India Building Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (E) Nariman Point Mumbai - 400065 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aagca5488D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

declaring total income of ₹.NIL. Subsequently an action u/s.132(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) was conducted by the investigation wing in the Jogia Group on 04.03.2010. In response to notice u/s 153A of the Act, the return of income was filed on 26/02/2011 declaring total income ... 26/12/2011 determining total income of ₹.5,00,00,000/-. Subsequently provision of sec 147 were invoked on the basis of information received from investigation wing as discussed in Para No. 2 of the Assessment Order. These entailed into issuance of notice u/s.148 on 21/03/2014 which was served on assessee

Pritesh Jitendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD, 27(2) (5), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 295/MUM/2022[2009-10`]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022
For Appellant: Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

General Goods. The assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.3,83,330/-. Subsequently, based on information received from the investigation wing that the assessee had made purchases to the extent of 2 A.Y. 2009-10 Pritesh Jitendra Mehta Rs.17,93,277/- from nineteen (19) hawala parties

Nitin A. Shah, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1201/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Nitin A. Shah, Dcit, Cc-1(3), 31/32, 8Th Floor, 905, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Giriraj Apartment, Vs. Old Cgo Building Annex, Teen Batti, Walkeshwar, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 006. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahps 3826 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, DR

Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short , 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was carried out on ) was carried out on 04/10/2013 by the Investi Investigation Wing in the office premises of the in the office premises of the assessee located at Panchratna, assessee located at Panchratna, Opera House, Mumbai

Nitin A. Shah, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1200/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Nitin A. Shah, Dcit, Cc-1(3), 31/32, 8Th Floor, 905, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Giriraj Apartment, Vs. Old Cgo Building Annex, Teen Batti, Walkeshwar, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 006. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahps 3826 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, DR

Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short , 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was carried out on ) was carried out on 04/10/2013 by the Investi Investigation Wing in the office premises of the in the office premises of the assessee located at Panchratna, assessee located at Panchratna, Opera House, Mumbai