← 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

ACIT 26(3), Mumbai vs. Umakant Laxmidas Manania, Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1217/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1217/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit-26(3) Ms. Vishakha U. Manania R. No. 332, 3Rd Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, (Legal Heir Of Late Shri Umakant बिाम/ Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Laxmidas Manania) 131/6, 1St Floor, Mani Bhuvan Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Jain Society, Sion(W) Mumbai-400 037 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aacpm-0540-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad-Ld. Sr. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya -Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 08/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 13/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Dated 27/11/2019 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) On 30/12/2016. The Ground Read As Under: -

For Appellant: Ms. Usha Gaikwad-Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Suchek Anchaliya -Ld. AR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69A

bogus loans and interest claimed on it without appreciating the fact that Shri Lunkaran Kothari and Shri Bhanwarlal Jain has admitted before the investigation wing that they did not carry out any real business.? As evident the revenue is aggrieved by relief provided by Ld. CIT(A) on account ... loan transactions stand established and proven satisfactorily. 8.4.4 I find the AO considering the statement of Shri Gautam Jain recorded by the Investigation Wing, Income tax Department during the search action u/s. 132 that he has provided bogus purchase bills and bogus unsecured loan entries through the business concerns floated