← 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

Bhanwarlal M. Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 1(3), Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2669/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.2669/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 2. To 8. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.108 To 114/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Bhanwarlal M. Jain Dcit-Central Circle-1(3) 171, 17Th Floor Old Cgo Bldg. 9Th Floor, Room No.905 बिाम/ Silver Arch Building Patit Hall Compound Pratishtha Bhavan Vs. Napean Sea Road Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 006. स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aafpj-1924-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 9. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.3509/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 10. To 16. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.98 To 104/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Dcit-Central Circle-1(3) Bhanwarlal M. Jain 171, 17Th Floor Old Cgo Bldg. 9Th Floor, Room No.905 बिाम/ Silver Arch Building Pratishtha Bhavan Patit Hall Compound Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Napean Sea Road Mumbai-400 006. स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aafpj-1924-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal, Shri Fenil Bhatt & Shri Suchek Anchaliya-Ld.Ars Revenue By : Shri P.C. Chhotaray-Ld. Spl. Counsel

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray-Ld. Spl
Section 143(3)Section 153A

other entities as alleged in the notice. The assessee asserted that the statement given u/s 132(4) was without consent, not voluntary & taken by Investigation wing by using threat and coercion. The statements were stated to be given in confused state of mind. Accordingly, retraction was filed vide affidavit dated ... Basant Jain who were present at that time of point. The copies of all the seized material were supplied to the assessee by the investigation wing immediately after the search but the assessee deliberately did not furnish any explanation on the incriminating material pertaining to parallel books of accounts maintained

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Construction, Mumbai

ITA 753/MUM/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Poonam Construction, Central Circle 1(3), Vs. 66B, 3Rd Floor, Poddar Chambers, 905, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, 22E Sayed Abdulla Barelvi Road, Old Cgo Bldg. (Annexe), M.K. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 001. Pan No. Aagfp 9871 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Yesh Poonam Developers, Central Circle 1(3), Vs. 66B, 3Rd Floor, Poddar Chambers, 905, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, 22E Sayed Abdulla Barelvi Road, Old Cgo Bldg. (Annexe), M.K. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 001. Pan No. Aaafy 8687 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Poonam Realty, Central Circle 1(3), Vs. 66B, 3Rd Floor, Poddar Chambers, 905, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, 22E Sayed Abdulla Barelvi Road, Old Cgo Bldg. (Annexe), M.K. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 001. Ita No. 743/M/2020 & Ors 2 M/S Poonam Construction & Ors

For Appellant: Mr. Prateek Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay J. Sethi, DR

Intelligence (DGGI).” However, as the addition in the case of the present assessee is based on the information received by the A.O from the Investigation Wing of the Income- tax department, Mumbai, therefore, the same would not fall within the meaning of “external sources” as had been specified in Para