← 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

ITO - 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Chanvim Engineering Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3594/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3594/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ito-6(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Chanvim Enginering (I) 5Th Floor, Room No.513, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 3, Nanji Bldg, A.D. Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020. Sewree, Mumbai-400012. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc4729P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M. Subramanian Revenue By: Shri R.A. Dhyani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Mumbai Dated 25.02.2019 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of The Act Of Rs.2,01,00,000/- (Accommodation Entry Of Loan) & Deleting The Addition Of Rs.4,02,000/- U/S 69C Of The Act (Commission). 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.28,43,280/-. The Ao Notes That The A.Y.2013-14 Chanvim Engg. (I) Pvt. Ltd. Assessee Is Engaged In The Activity Of Manufacturing Aluminium Roll Bond Evaporator Panel & Assessee Has Shown The Income From Profit & Gains From Business & Profession. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny. According To The Ao, He Received An Information From The Office Of Investigation Wing, Mumbai That The Assessee Has Availed The Accommodation Entry From Bhanwarlal Jain Group Who Gives Accommodation Entry.

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

gains from business and profession. The case was selected for scrutiny. According to the AO, he received an information from the office of Investigation Wing, Mumbai that the assessee has availed the accommodation entry from Bhanwarlal Jain Group who gives accommodation entry. 4. According to the AO the information from ... Investigation Wing was that there was a search/survey action conducted in the premises of M/s Bhanwarlal Jain Group on 03.10.2013 from which it was evident that they were involved in providing in accommodation entry to beneficiary companies by providing cheque in lieu of cash. According