← 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

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5516/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

Shri Rajiv Harit, on the other hand, submitted that the gains earned by the assessee were bogus in nature as per the findings of investigation wing and therefore, the same has rightly been 4 M/s Anil Agrawal (HUF) ITA Nos. 5512-5516/Mum/2019 Assessment Years ... sale / purchase of the shares took place through banking channels. The assessee also demanded whether there was any mention in the report of the investigation wing that the assessee had given cash to anybody for getting such long term capital gains and if so, the opportunity to cross verify such

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5515/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

Shri Rajiv Harit, on the other hand, submitted that the gains earned by the assessee were bogus in nature as per the findings of investigation wing and therefore, the same has rightly been 4 M/s Anil Agrawal (HUF) ITA Nos. 5512-5516/Mum/2019 Assessment Years ... sale / purchase of the shares took place through banking channels. The assessee also demanded whether there was any mention in the report of the investigation wing that the assessee had given cash to anybody for getting such long term capital gains and if so, the opportunity to cross verify such

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5514/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

Shri Rajiv Harit, on the other hand, submitted that the gains earned by the assessee were bogus in nature as per the findings of investigation wing and therefore, the same has rightly been 4 M/s Anil Agrawal (HUF) ITA Nos. 5512-5516/Mum/2019 Assessment Years ... sale / purchase of the shares took place through banking channels. The assessee also demanded whether there was any mention in the report of the investigation wing that the assessee had given cash to anybody for getting such long term capital gains and if so, the opportunity to cross verify such

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5513/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

Shri Rajiv Harit, on the other hand, submitted that the gains earned by the assessee were bogus in nature as per the findings of investigation wing and therefore, the same has rightly been 4 M/s Anil Agrawal (HUF) ITA Nos. 5512-5516/Mum/2019 Assessment Years ... sale / purchase of the shares took place through banking channels. The assessee also demanded whether there was any mention in the report of the investigation wing that the assessee had given cash to anybody for getting such long term capital gains and if so, the opportunity to cross verify such

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5512/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

Shri Rajiv Harit, on the other hand, submitted that the gains earned by the assessee were bogus in nature as per the findings of investigation wing and therefore, the same has rightly been 4 M/s Anil Agrawal (HUF) ITA Nos. 5512-5516/Mum/2019 Assessment Years ... sale / purchase of the shares took place through banking channels. The assessee also demanded whether there was any mention in the report of the investigation wing that the assessee had given cash to anybody for getting such long term capital gains and if so, the opportunity to cross verify such

G.M. Exports, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5506/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5506/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) G.M. Exports Acit-19(1) बिाम/ 2Nd Floor , Matru Mandir Cw-4150, Bharat Diamond Bourse Bandra Kurla Complex Tardeo Road Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. Mumbai – 400 007. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafg-1496-J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Smita Verma – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 24/03/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / 05/04/2021 : Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

dealer of diamond was assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 06/12/2016. The assessment was so framed pursuant to receipt of certain information from investigation wing wherein it transpired that the assessee procured accommodation purchase bills of Rs.71.91 Lacs from 2 entities belonging to Shri Bhanwarlal Jain Group as detailed ... substantiate the purchases so made. 2.2 Though the assessee filed certain documentary evidences in support of purchases, however, going by the findings of investigation wing in the case of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain Group, Ld. AO estimated an addition of 6.99% against these purchase. This was in view of the fact

Mr. Ramesh Dhawalchand Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeals stands dismissed

ITA 4512/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5665/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-19(3)(1) Shri Ramesh Dhawalchand Jain बिाम/ 89,2Nd Pathan Street Matru Mandir 2Nd Floor, Room No.202 5Th Kumbharwada Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Mumbai – 400 004. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Abvpj-7944-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4512/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Ramesh Dhawalchand Jain Ito-19(3)(1) 89,2Nd Pathan Street बिाम/ Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor 5Th Kumbharwada Room No.202,Tardeo Road Vs. Mumbai – 400 004. Mumbai – 400 007. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Abvpj-7944-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal-Ld. Sr. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Smita Verma – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/03/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal-Ld. Sr. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148

assessed for the year under consideration u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 on 09/03/2015. The assessment was so framed pursuant to receipt of certain information from investigation wing that the assessee procured bogus purchase bills for Rs.32.30 Lacs from two entities as detailed in the assessment order. Accordingly, notice

ITO -19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Dhawalchand Jain, Mumbai

Appeals stands dismissed

ITA 5665/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5665/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-19(3)(1) Shri Ramesh Dhawalchand Jain बिाम/ 89,2Nd Pathan Street Matru Mandir 2Nd Floor, Room No.202 5Th Kumbharwada Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Mumbai – 400 004. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Abvpj-7944-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4512/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Ramesh Dhawalchand Jain Ito-19(3)(1) 89,2Nd Pathan Street बिाम/ Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor 5Th Kumbharwada Room No.202,Tardeo Road Vs. Mumbai – 400 004. Mumbai – 400 007. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Abvpj-7944-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal-Ld. Sr. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Smita Verma – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/03/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal-Ld. Sr. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148

assessed for the year under consideration u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 on 09/03/2015. The assessment was so framed pursuant to receipt of certain information from investigation wing that the assessee procured bogus purchase bills for Rs.32.30 Lacs from two entities as detailed in the assessment order. Accordingly, notice