← 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

M/S Atlanta Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ircle-9 (1)(2), Mumbai

Appeals stands partly allowed whereas the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 7424/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7424/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7425/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Atlanta Limited Dcit Circle – 9(1)(2), बिाम/ 301, Shree Ambashanti Chambers Aaykar Bhavan, Opp. Hotel Leela, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-8865-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7630/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7631/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) 5. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7632/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit Circle – 9(1)(2), M/S Atlanta Limited R. No. 210, 2Nd Floor बिाम/ 301, Shree Ambashanti Chambers Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Opp. Hotel Leela, Andheri (East), Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-8865-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Brajendra Kumar– Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 26/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar– Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

confirming the reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act which was reopened merely on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing and without independent application of mind by the learned Assessing Officer. c) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of assessment ... GLPL') against pledge of promoters' shares u/s. 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit merely on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing and without due application of mind to the explanation and documentary evidences placed on record. b) On the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S Superflo Filters Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 11 (2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1772/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1772/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Superflo Filters Pvt. बिधम/ Ito-11(2)(4) Ltd. Room No.349/477, Aayakar Vs. B-5, 103/104, Greenland Co. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Op. Soc, Shrinivas Bagarka Mumbai-400020. Road, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs4955N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jitendra Singh (Ar) Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.01.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ld. Cit(A)"] Erred In Passing The Order Dated 28.01.2019 Upholding The Reassessment Order Passed By Income Tax Officer, Ward — 11(2)(4), Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As `Ld. Ao’ Without Appreciating The Facts & Circumstances Of The

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh (AR)For Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

failed to appreciate that the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued merely on the basis of information received from Investigation wing who in turn gathered it from sales-tax department's MAIIAVAT list prepared under heading — suspicious hawala dealers. Entire proceedings were carried out on the basis