← 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

Ashok Kumar Banthia, Bikaner vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Bikaner

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 297/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavashok Kumar Banthia, Vs. D.C.I.T., Kumharon Ka Mohalla, Central Circle, Gangashahar, Bikaner. Bikaner. Pan No. Aixpb 4919 N Assessee By Shri Suresh Ojha, Adv. & Shri Sudarshan Jhabak, Ca. Revenue By Smt. Sanchita Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2021 O R D E R Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-Iv, Jaipur Dated 07/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That The Order Passed By The Assessing Authority & Sustained By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Illegal & Against The Law. 2. That The Order Is Illegal In View Of The Fact That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) As Well As The Assessing Authority Fails To Cross Examine The Deponent Of The Affidavits Submitted Before The Assessing Officer. In View Of Judgment Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court Delivered In The Case Of M/S Mehta Parekha & Co., The Contents Of The Affidavit Should Have Been Accepted. 3. That The Assessment Completed In The Hands Of The Assessee Is Not Justified Because The Amount Belongs To M/S Lux Industries Limited As Admitted By The Director Of The Company. Therefore, The Assessment Is Illegal.

For Appellant: “1. That the
Section 132Section 143(3)

working as an Accountant with M/s Lux Industries Ltd. in Delhi Office. Q. No. 9 Mr. Bhaskar Poddar in his statement recorded by the Investigation Wing, New Delhi on 07.06.2011 has stated as follows :- (i) Normally the sales are made to the Distributors of the company. However, the cash sales

Daga Infocom Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Cdit-CC-3(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7507/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 7507/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Daga Infocom Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Cc – 3(4) बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, 106, Sagar Shopping Centre J. P. Road, Andheri West, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 058 Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcd-9604-P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vishnu Agarwal, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Andhle, Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/08/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Certain Addition U/S 68 For Rs.67 Lacs In Ay 2009-10, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Assessment Was Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. On 147 On 30/06/2016 Wherein Impugned Order Was Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Cit(A)] On 26/10/2018. The Assessee Being Resident Corporate Assessee Is Stated

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

financials of the assessee do not justify receipt of any premium and the share applicants had meager income. Going by the findings of investigation wing with respect to Kolkata based entities, Ld. AO alleged that share application money of Rs.67 Lacs received from 4 entities viz. M/s Blueview Tradecom

Dy. CIT 10 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Priority Jewels Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6258/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri M. Balaganesh, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 6258/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 6259/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Priority Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax 7 Plot No. 121, Street No. 2Nd Circle-10(3)(2), Floor, 15/18, Midc, Marol, Vs. Room No. 509, Aayakar Andheri (East), Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 093 Churchgate, Mumbai-20 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaecp4118K अऩीराथी की ओय े / Appellant By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े / Respondent By : None स नवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2021 Aadosa / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147

seen that the assessee is unable to substantiate its purchases from the claimed suppliers who has already been established as hawala dealers by the Investigation wing of the Income Tax Department. The suppliers were neither produced during the assessment proceedings nor during appellate proceedings when opportunity was so provided. Hence