← 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

Smt. Bimla Devi, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3266/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3263/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Rita Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4D, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aagpr4368A] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3264/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aflpa1767N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3265/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Shobha Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aaxpc8430H] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3266/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Smt. Bimla Devi, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aadpd8240L] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

provided with a copy of statement of Shri Beni Prasad Lahoti, accommodation 8 I.T.A. Nos.3263-3266/Chny/19 entry operator, from whom statement was recorded by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata, which has proved beyond doubt that: a. he has few of his employees namely, 1. Shri Navnit kumar Singhania, 2. Shri Jaiprakash ... year the assessee received ₹.1,25,00,000 as loan from various Jama Kharchi/ Shell /paper Companies. b. On basis of information received from Investigation wing that assessee was involved in taking accommodation entries, the assessee was asked to produce the lenders. Even after sufficient time was accorded, the assessee

Smt. Shobha Agarwal, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3 (2), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3265/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3263/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Rita Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4D, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aagpr4368A] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3264/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aflpa1767N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3265/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Shobha Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aaxpc8430H] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3266/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Smt. Bimla Devi, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aadpd8240L] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

provided with a copy of statement of Shri Beni Prasad Lahoti, accommodation 8 I.T.A. Nos.3263-3266/Chny/19 entry operator, from whom statement was recorded by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata, which has proved beyond doubt that: a. he has few of his employees namely, 1. Shri Navnit kumar Singhania, 2. Shri Jaiprakash ... year the assessee received ₹.1,25,00,000 as loan from various Jama Kharchi/ Shell /paper Companies. b. On basis of information received from Investigation wing that assessee was involved in taking accommodation entries, the assessee was asked to produce the lenders. Even after sufficient time was accorded, the assessee

Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3264/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3263/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Rita Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4D, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aagpr4368A] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3264/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aflpa1767N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3265/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Shobha Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aaxpc8430H] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3266/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Smt. Bimla Devi, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aadpd8240L] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

provided with a copy of statement of Shri Beni Prasad Lahoti, accommodation 8 I.T.A. Nos.3263-3266/Chny/19 entry operator, from whom statement was recorded by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata, which has proved beyond doubt that: a. he has few of his employees namely, 1. Shri Navnit kumar Singhania, 2. Shri Jaiprakash ... year the assessee received ₹.1,25,00,000 as loan from various Jama Kharchi/ Shell /paper Companies. b. On basis of information received from Investigation wing that assessee was involved in taking accommodation entries, the assessee was asked to produce the lenders. Even after sufficient time was accorded, the assessee

Smt. Rita Agarwal, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3 (2), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3263/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3263/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Rita Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4D, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aagpr4368A] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3264/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aflpa1767N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3265/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Shobha Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aaxpc8430H] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3266/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Smt. Bimla Devi, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aadpd8240L] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

provided with a copy of statement of Shri Beni Prasad Lahoti, accommodation 8 I.T.A. Nos.3263-3266/Chny/19 entry operator, from whom statement was recorded by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata, which has proved beyond doubt that: a. he has few of his employees namely, 1. Shri Navnit kumar Singhania, 2. Shri Jaiprakash ... year the assessee received ₹.1,25,00,000 as loan from various Jama Kharchi/ Shell /paper Companies. b. On basis of information received from Investigation wing that assessee was involved in taking accommodation entries, the assessee was asked to produce the lenders. Even after sufficient time was accorded, the assessee

Juridictional ITO - 31(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Elphistone Paper Box Manufacturing Co., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,

ITA 445/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Jurisdictional Income-Tax Officer- M/S Elphinstone Paper Box 31(1)(1), Manufacturing Co. Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, Vs. S/10 Ram Mandir Road, Kautilya Bhavan, Goregaon (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400104. ‘G’ Block, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafe 0509 Q Appellant Respondent Co No. 18/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 445/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Co No. 17/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 444/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2008-09 &

445/M/2021 & 11 Ors. CBD/ED/DRI/SFIO/Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) CBD/ED/DRI/SFIO/Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) CBD/ED/DRI/SFIO/Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) etc. Whereas the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department nvestigation Wing of the Income Tax Department nvestigation Wing of the Income Tax Department is part of the Income ... Department or from internal enforcement agency i.e. Sales Tax Department or from internal enforcement agency i.e. Sales Tax Department or from internal source i.e. Investigation Wing. source i.e. Investigation Wing. In the case before us, the Ld. In the case before us, the Ld. Assessing Officer has given Assessing Officer