← 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

Dinesh S Dhokar, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4546/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm& Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4546/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri Dinesh S. Dhokar, Ito-19(1)(4), 2Nd Floor, Room No. 222, R. No. 6, Bldg No. 1, Matru Mandir, Tardeo बिधम/ Dadarkar Compound, Vaibhav, C-Wing, 1St Raod, Mumbai-400 007 Vs. Floor, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 034 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaapd8605N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4545/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito-19(1)(4), Smt. Anita Dinesh 2Nd Floor, Room No. 222, Dhokar, Matru Mandir, Tardeo R. No. 6, Bldg No. 1, बिधम/ Raod, Mumbai-400 007 Dadarkar Compound, Vs. Vaibhav, C-Wing, 1St Floor, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 034 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aacpd9237E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sethi, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

party to confirm 5 I.T.A. No. 4545 & 4546/Mum/2019 Shri Dinesh S. Dhokar & Smt. Anita Dinesh Dhokar the transactions and the information received from investigation wing revealed that all the suppliers were engaged in carrying out only paper transactions without actual delivery of material. The complete onus to prove the purchases

Income Tax Officer 4(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Sajjan Kumar Bajoria, Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 7354/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7354/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Income Tax Officer-4(3)(3) Shri Sajjan Kumar Bajoria बनाम/ Room No.637, 6Th Floor 384-B, Dabholkarwadi, 3Rd Floor Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020. Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aiepb-2732-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7355/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Income Tax Officer-4(3)(3) Smt. Sushila Devi Bajoria बनाम/ Room No.637, 6Th Floor 384-B, Dabholkarwadi, 3Rd Floor Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020. Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aiepb-2731-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Hariom Tulsiyani – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri T.S. Khalsa- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 07/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 20/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Tulsiyani – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. 3.2 The allegation of Ld. AO would stem from the fact that pursuant to enquiry conducted by investigation wing, Kolkata in the case of a person namely Shri Prakash Jajodia, it transpired that Shri Prakash Jajodia, with the help of number of dummy ... entity namely M/s Anumati Stock Broking Private Limited (ASBPL) which was allegedly promoted by Shri Prakash Jajodia. 3.3 In response to notice issued by investigation wing, Shri Prakash Jajodia admitted to have accepted cash from various beneficiaries and deposited the same in various dummy companies by creating artificial layering which