← All Phrases

“investigation wing”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 14712,584 judgments

The decision most relied on for investigation wing is Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (329 ITR 110), cited in 217 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on investigation wing

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.

PCIT v. M/s. Kesoram Industries 57
417 ITR 334 · 2019 · High Court
96
citing judgments

An assessment completed under Section 143(3) cannot be reopened after four years solely based on third-party information or opinions, such as from an Investigation Wing, without the Assessing Officer applying their own independent mind to the material and having new, independent material on record.

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.

Aradhna Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
91 Taxmann.com 119 · 2018 · High Court
56
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer is justified in reopening assessment proceedings based on information received from the Investigation Wing, even when recording findings also rely on documents already on record, provided all procedural requirements for reassessment are met.

Judgments citing investigation wing

Chouhan Builders India Housing Development P. L Td vs. Mumbai

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

ITA 4793/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalchouhan Builders India Housing Development P. Ltd. 104A, Sajid Tower, Amboli, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaccc1839Q ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit -9(2)(1), R.No. 665A, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. K. Shivram With Ms. Neelam Jadhav Respondent By : Sh. Pankaj Kumar Date Of Hearing : 10/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Vide Order Dated 31.05.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit (A) 16 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit (A)) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Assessment Of The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.15,00,000/- As Against Loss Of Rs. 89,84,401.24 Returned By The Appellant. 2. Order Dt.31/05/19 Passed By Ld. Cit(A) As Well As Order Dt.27/12/18 Passed By Ld. Ao Were Bad In Law As The Same Were Not Based On Facts But Were Based On Assumptions Or Surmises Or Erroneous Findings & Has Not Considered Submissions Made By Appellant Or Authorities Cited By Appellant.

For Appellant: Sh. K. Shivram with Ms. Neelam JadhavFor Respondent: Sh. Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 69A

initio. 3.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AD erred in law in solely relying on the information of the investigation wing, Mumbai. The AO had not conducted any independent enquiry either before issue of Notice u/s 148 of the Act or during reassessment proceedings, hence ... erred in law in making addition based on statement of third party and based on report of investigation wing or unknown materials without giving entire copy of the same to the Appellant Company thereby violating principle of Natural justice. 4.4 The L. AD has erred in law in proceeding with

ITO - 22(3)(6), Mumbai vs. Shi Rohit Chandulal Vora, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

ITA 173/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2022AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)

sufficient to take note of the fact that in this case the addition was made on the basis of inputs from the investigation wing to the effect that the assessee has taken certain bogus purchase bills aggregating to Rs. 8,84,672/-. When the matter travelled in appeal before

Aditya Saraf HUF, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-50(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 9581/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 10(38)Section 68Section 69C

time of sale of shares, the price has increased astronomically by almost 1945%. Further, he found that as per investigation conducted by Investigation Wing of the department at various places, it was found that this company is a penny stock company. Thus, based on such information available on record

Root Invest (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 21(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 7001/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 5(2)Section 6

confirming the above disallowance despite the fact that the addition is made by the AO relying on the report of the investigation wing without application of his own mind. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts

Sanjay Jain, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 69(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms stated herein above

ITA 4516/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 69CSection 80C

liable to be quashed as the Hon'ble CIT(Appeals) and the learned Assessing Officer placed reliance on information of investigation wing without providing any opportunity to the appellant to examine the same. 7. That the learned CIT(Appeals) has wrongly upheld the addition made by Assessing Officer ... find that the Assessing Officer has based his finding on the basis of investigation carried out by the Investigation Wing at Kolkata. 5 Sanjay Jain Vs. ITO The assessee has not placed on record any material to controvert the finding of the assessing authority. Therefore, in the absence

Virendrakumar Vijayvargia, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 383/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 147

filed its original return of income on 5.10.2015 declaring total income of Rs 60,380/-. Subsequently, the ld. AO received information from the investigation wing of the Income tax department, Mumbai that assessee is one of the concern controlled and managed by Shri Bhanwarlal Jain who used this concern

Sampatkumar S. Dadhich, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 345/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 147

filed its original return of income on 5.10.2015 declaring total income of Rs 60,380/-. Subsequently, the ld. AO received information from the investigation wing of the Income tax department, Mumbai that assessee is one of the concern controlled and managed by Shri Bhanwarlal Jain who used this concern

Sonam Gems Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 315/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 147

filed its original return of income on 5.10.2015 declaring total income of Rs 60,380/-. Subsequently, the ld. AO received information from the investigation wing of the Income tax department, Mumbai that assessee is one of the concern controlled and managed by Shri Bhanwarlal Jain who used this concern

Gagan Chandaliya, Surat vs. ACIT CC -1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 305/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 147

filed its original return of income on 5.10.2015 declaring total income of Rs 60,380/-. Subsequently, the ld. AO received information from the investigation wing of the Income tax department, Mumbai that assessee is one of the concern controlled and managed by Shri Bhanwarlal Jain who used this concern

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

In the result, appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

ITA 812/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 142Section 153A

basis of the material seized the learned AO noted that assessee has owned up the seized material in his statement on oath before investigation Wing and during the assessment proceedings and therefore the addition of undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee was made on substantive basis

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

In the result, appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

ITA 811/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 142Section 153A

basis of the material seized the learned AO noted that assessee has owned up the seized material in his statement on oath before investigation Wing and during the assessment proceedings and therefore the addition of undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee was made on substantive basis

Vijay K Patel-HUF, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-4(2)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

securities was after the payment of the Securities Transaction Tax (STT). The AO was of the opinion on the basis of the report of Investigation Wing of Directorate of Kolkata, found that the scripts of this Lifeline Drugs & Pharma was used for providing LTCG to the beneficiaries which is bogus ... involved in reading of the price of the scripts. Likewise, there was no opportunity of cross-examination of the statements/details obtained by the investigation wing of Calcutta was provided. Thus, in the absence of such verification, there cannot be any addition to the total income of the assessee by treating

DCIT, Central Circle - 2 (4), Chennai vs. Shri Allahrakka Rahman, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 535/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.535/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Allahrakka Rahaman, No. 5, Dr. Subbarayan Nagar, 4Th Street, Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Investigation Wing, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Admpr0060J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri D. Anand, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.05.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 31.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 4 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, For Which, The Department Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay, To Which; The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection. Consequently, Since

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Shri Allahrakka Rahaman, No. 5, Dr. Subbarayan Nagar, 4th Street, Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Investigation Wing, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. Chennai – 600 034. [PAN: ADMPR0060J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

M/S. Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: Na

For Appellant: Sri Ramasubramaniyan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements

Riaz Munshi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 17(2), New Delhi

ITA 3404/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 10(38)Section 68Section 69C

price achieved through rigging by the operators and claims exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act. Further, as per the investigation done by Investigation Wing, Security & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has conducted a thorough inquiry regarding artificial rigging of price of equity shares and found that certain entities ... buying, selling and dealing any security either directly or indirectly in any manner. Thus, the Assessing Officer observed , the inquiry 3 conducted by the Investigation Wing as well as SEBI, clearly demonstrated that the share transactions from which assessee claimed to have derived long term capital gains are ingenuine

Harshita Chhawchharia vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-20

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITA/3/2021HC Calcutta07 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

hierarchy of authorities in the Income Tax Investigation department. It is submitted that in the Income Tax department more particularly in the investigation wing, the top most authority is the CBDT through its Member Investigation, followed by the Principal Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Director General of Income

Shri K. Chandirasekaran, Trichy vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Trichy

In the result, both the appeals stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3001/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Varuvooru Sreedhar (Addl. CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148

silver utensils held by her with my father. It was deposed in the statement taken from me by the Assistant Director of Investigation, Investigation wing, Tiruchirapalli though investment made in my husband's name, it belongs to me. This is also confirmed by my husband, A.K.K. chandirasekaran, LIC agent Subramanian

Shri K. Chandirasekaran, Trichy vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Trichy

In the result, both the appeals stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3000/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Varuvooru Sreedhar (Addl. CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148

silver utensils held by her with my father. It was deposed in the statement taken from me by the Assistant Director of Investigation, Investigation wing, Tiruchirapalli though investment made in my husband's name, it belongs to me. This is also confirmed by my husband, A.K.K. chandirasekaran, LIC agent Subramanian

Dy CIT CC-2(3), Mumbai vs. Vipul Dilipbhai Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as cross- objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1278/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit Central Circle-2(3), Vipul Dilipbhai Shah, Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Prathishtha 401, Deepak Bldg. 3Rd Floor, S.V. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Vs. Road, Vile Parle-W, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aahps 5253 J Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 12/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 1278/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vipul Dilipbhai Shah, Dcit Central Circle-2(3), 401, Deepak Bldg. 3Rd Floor, S.V. Road, Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Vile Parle-W, Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400056. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahps 5253 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajan Vora, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Achal Sharma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/06/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan Vora, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271DSection 69A

accounted and offered for tax. 2. We find that in this case, in view of the information received by the Assessing Officer from the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, Mumbai that during the course of search action at the premises of Bharani Group and M/s Evergreen Enterprises ... also asked to explain that the discrepancy in the loan amount as per Annexure A-2 (at Rs.2.23 cr.) and the information received from Investigation Wing (at Rs. 3.92 cr.). The A0 was also asked to furnish copier of the relevant seized documents on the basis of which additions were

Dy CIT CC-2(3), Mumbai vs. Vipul Dilipbhai Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as cross- objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1277/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit Central Circle-2(3), Vipul Dilipbhai Shah, Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Prathishtha 401, Deepak Bldg. 3Rd Floor, S.V. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Vs. Road, Vile Parle-W, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aahps 5253 J Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 12/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 1278/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vipul Dilipbhai Shah, Dcit Central Circle-2(3), 401, Deepak Bldg. 3Rd Floor, S.V. Road, Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Vile Parle-W, Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400056. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahps 5253 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajan Vora, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Achal Sharma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/06/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan Vora, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271DSection 69A

accounted and offered for tax. 2. We find that in this case, in view of the information received by the Assessing Officer from the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, Mumbai that during the course of search action at the premises of Bharani Group and M/s Evergreen Enterprises ... also asked to explain that the discrepancy in the loan amount as per Annexure A-2 (at Rs.2.23 cr.) and the information received from Investigation Wing (at Rs. 3.92 cr.). The A0 was also asked to furnish copier of the relevant seized documents on the basis of which additions were