← 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

D.C.I.T., Circle-2(3), Kolkata vs. Smt. Promila Chandhoke, Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are 14

ITA 965/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-2(3), Smt. Promila Chandhoke Kolkata Vs. B-96, Mansarover Garden, New Delhi- 110 015. Pan: Aahpc 8795 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-2(3), Shri Harshdeep Kolkata Chandhoke Vs. B-96, Mansarover Garden, New Delhi- 110 015. Pan: Aerpc 3660 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-2(3), Ninder & Sons (Huf) Kolkata Vs. B-96, Mansarover Garden, New Delhi- 110015. Pan: Aadhn 7436 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Respondent By : Shri I.P. Bansal & Shri Vivek Bansal, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Three Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 17, New Delhi Vide Order Even Dated 31.12.2018 In Respective Appeal Smt. Promila Chandoke, Shri Harshdeep Chandhoke & Ninder & Sons (Huf)

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri I.P. Bansal & Shri Vivek Bansal, Advocate
Section 127(2)Section 143(3)

business premise as reported by the assessee was at B-96, Mansarover Garden, New Delhi. During the course of search operations conducted by the Investigation Wing, it is seen that the said premise was actually a residential building. Moreover, on perusal of the assessment records