← 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

S.R.Engineering Corporation, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-36(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1458/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble(Kz) & S. S. Godara, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. Nos. 1455 To 1458 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.................................................................................Appellant Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Vs Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..........Respondent Kolkata – 700 069. & I.T.A. Nos. 1585 & 1586 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..............Appellant Kolkata – 700 069. Vs M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.............................................................................Respondent Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 08, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 22, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

admitted that he was the operator of various entities to provide bogus bills to various beneficiaries in lieu of commission. As found by the Investigation Wing, the assessee was one of such beneficiaries and had received the bogus bills from the fake entities of Shri Sanjiw Kumar Singh as under ... basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessments for all the relevant four years that is A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and notices u/s 148 were issued by him to the assessee after recording the reasons. In reply

S.R.Engineering Corporation, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-36(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1457/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble(Kz) & S. S. Godara, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. Nos. 1455 To 1458 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.................................................................................Appellant Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Vs Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..........Respondent Kolkata – 700 069. & I.T.A. Nos. 1585 & 1586 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..............Appellant Kolkata – 700 069. Vs M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.............................................................................Respondent Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 08, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 22, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

admitted that he was the operator of various entities to provide bogus bills to various beneficiaries in lieu of commission. As found by the Investigation Wing, the assessee was one of such beneficiaries and had received the bogus bills from the fake entities of Shri Sanjiw Kumar Singh as under ... basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessments for all the relevant four years that is A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and notices u/s 148 were issued by him to the assessee after recording the reasons. In reply

S.R.Engineering Corporation, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-36(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1456/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble(Kz) & S. S. Godara, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. Nos. 1455 To 1458 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.................................................................................Appellant Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Vs Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..........Respondent Kolkata – 700 069. & I.T.A. Nos. 1585 & 1586 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..............Appellant Kolkata – 700 069. Vs M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.............................................................................Respondent Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 08, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 22, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

admitted that he was the operator of various entities to provide bogus bills to various beneficiaries in lieu of commission. As found by the Investigation Wing, the assessee was one of such beneficiaries and had received the bogus bills from the fake entities of Shri Sanjiw Kumar Singh as under ... basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessments for all the relevant four years that is A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and notices u/s 148 were issued by him to the assessee after recording the reasons. In reply

S.R.Engineering Corporation, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-36(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1455/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble(Kz) & S. S. Godara, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. Nos. 1455 To 1458 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.................................................................................Appellant Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Vs Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..........Respondent Kolkata – 700 069. & I.T.A. Nos. 1585 & 1586 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..............Appellant Kolkata – 700 069. Vs M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.............................................................................Respondent Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 08, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 22, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

admitted that he was the operator of various entities to provide bogus bills to various beneficiaries in lieu of commission. As found by the Investigation Wing, the assessee was one of such beneficiaries and had received the bogus bills from the fake entities of Shri Sanjiw Kumar Singh as under ... basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessments for all the relevant four years that is A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and notices u/s 148 were issued by him to the assessee after recording the reasons. In reply

Lypsa Diamonds, Mumbai vs. ITO WD- 30(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 4436/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 4434/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आिकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 4435/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आिकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 4436/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Lypsa Diamonds Income Tax Officer – Wared 30(2)(1) बिाम/ 2Nd Floor, Mehta Mahal C-13, 6Th Floor, Pratyakshkar Bhawan North Side, 15Th Mathew Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Vs. Charni Road, Mumbai – 400 004 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थािीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-0410-F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Michael Jerald-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 15/10/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 22/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald-Ld. DR
Section 143Section 145Section 147Section 14ASection 234ASection 274Section 3Section 68Section 69C

reassessment can be made just to make an enquiry or verification. b. Reassessment proceedings cannot be initiate merely on the information received from investigation wing. c. Reassessment proceeding cannot be initiated when the Ld. CIT(A) have reason to suspect and not reason to believe. 3. On the Facts

Lypsa Diamonds, Mumbai vs. ITO WD - 30(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 4435/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 4434/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आिकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 4435/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आिकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 4436/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Lypsa Diamonds Income Tax Officer – Wared 30(2)(1) बिाम/ 2Nd Floor, Mehta Mahal C-13, 6Th Floor, Pratyakshkar Bhawan North Side, 15Th Mathew Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Vs. Charni Road, Mumbai – 400 004 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थािीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-0410-F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Michael Jerald-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 15/10/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 22/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald-Ld. DR
Section 143Section 145Section 147Section 14ASection 234ASection 274Section 3Section 68Section 69C

reassessment can be made just to make an enquiry or verification. b. Reassessment proceedings cannot be initiate merely on the information received from investigation wing. c. Reassessment proceeding cannot be initiated when the Ld. CIT(A) have reason to suspect and not reason to believe. 3. On the Facts

Lypsa Diamonds, Mumbai vs. ITO WD- 30(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 4434/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 4434/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आिकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 4435/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आिकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 4436/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Lypsa Diamonds Income Tax Officer – Wared 30(2)(1) बिाम/ 2Nd Floor, Mehta Mahal C-13, 6Th Floor, Pratyakshkar Bhawan North Side, 15Th Mathew Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Vs. Charni Road, Mumbai – 400 004 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थािीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-0410-F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Michael Jerald-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 15/10/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 22/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald-Ld. DR
Section 143Section 145Section 147Section 14ASection 234ASection 274Section 3Section 68Section 69C

reassessment can be made just to make an enquiry or verification. b. Reassessment proceedings cannot be initiate merely on the information received from investigation wing. c. Reassessment proceeding cannot be initiated when the Ld. CIT(A) have reason to suspect and not reason to believe. 3. On the Facts

Gangeshwari Metals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-11(3), New Delhi

ITA 9343/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Senior DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

reason to believe that income has escaped assessment as Reasons have been recorded on borrowed satisfaction viz. letter dated 27.03.2017 alongwith report of the Investigation Wing, Unit 3(1), Kolkata without making an independent enquiries. b) The figures recorded in the reasons viz. buying, selling and profit are factually incorrect ... Thereafter, the assessment was reopened after recording reasons 3 ITA No.9343/Del./2019 after a period of four years on receipt of certain information form Investigation Wing of the Income-tax Department for initiation of proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act for AY 2010-11. It is the case

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Rangoli Buildtech (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5015/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Vs Rangoli Buildtech (P) Ltd., Central Circle-14, 1105, Akash Deep Building, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccr8695P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sunit Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26Th March, 2014 Of The Cit(A)-33 New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Purchasing & Selling & Developing Of Real Estate. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The It Act, 1961 Was Conducted By The Investigation Wing Of The Department On 22.03.2011 In The Amtek Group Of Cases. The Premises Of M/S Excel Infotech Pvt. Ltd. & Others, 9, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi Was Also Covered U/S 132(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Which Is A Group Company Of Amtek Group. The Documents Belonging To The Assessee, M/S Rangoli Buildtech Pvt Ltd, 1105, Akash Deep Building, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi- 110001 Were Also Found & Seized From The Premises Of M/S Excel Infotech Pvt Ltd & Others, 9, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi In Whose Name Search Warrant Of Authorization Was Issued. The Assessee'S Case Was Proposed For Centralization By The Investigation Wing For Coordinated Investigation & Assessment U/S 153C & Subsequently It Was Centralized With Central Circle- 14, New Delhi Vide Order F.No Cit(C) Centr/2012- 13/239 Dated 25.04.2012. Accordingly Notice U/S 153C Of The Income Tax Act Was Issued To The Assessee On 08.11.2012. In Response To The Said Notice, The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 05.02.2013 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.6,89,710/-.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sunit Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153C

purchasing and selling and developing of real estate. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 was conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Department on 22.03.2011 in the Amtek Group of cases. The premises of M/s Excel Infotech Pvt. Ltd. & others, 9, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught ... Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi in whose name search warrant of authorization was issued. The assessee's case was proposed for centralization by the Investigation Wing for coordinated investigation and assessment u/s 153C and subsequently it was centralized with Central Circle- 14, New Delhi vide order F.No CIT(C) Centr/2012-

Ssl Exports Ltd., Howrah vs. DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2670/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 133ASection 250Section 271Section 35

registered/Administrative offices of SHG&PH, MIER&E and HHBRF and these institutions were engaged in bogus donation through various brokers for a commission. The Investigation Wing stated that the bogus donations were taken by cheques/RTGS and after taking commission, the same were routed back to the donor in the form ... read with Rule 5C and 5E of the Income-tax Rule, 1962. The approval was rescinded on the basis of inputs received by the Investigation Wing Kolkata. The Notification reads as follows: 3 I.T.A. No. 2670/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 SSL Exports Ltd. "Ministry of Finance, (Department of Revenue) (Central

Designarch Infrastructure P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8199/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 8199/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, L-7A(Lgf), South Extension, Part-Ii, Ward-7(1), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacfi4218C Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR
Section 127(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

income of assessee company has been downloaded from the ITD system and the same was examined in the light of information received from Investigation Wing. On comparative examination of return of income of the assessee company for A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11, the following has been observed with regard ... that the assessee company has increased its share capital/share premium by total amount of Rs.2,02,40,000/-. Thus the information received from the investigation wing is corroborated by the particulars shown by the assessee company in its return of income. 4.3 The company was incorporated on 13.03.2006. The assessee

Sutinder Singh, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

In the result both the appeals under consideration are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 221/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony(Through Virtual Conference)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kardam
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

ought to have appreciated that there was only an information which had purportedly been received from the Investigation Wing, Hyderabad but there was no belief, whatsoever, formed by the assessing officer that there was any escapement of income which necessitated the issuance of notice under section ... ought to have appreciated that the assessing officer has not independently made up his mind on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing, Hyderabad, before the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the information with

Sutinder Singh, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

In the result both the appeals under consideration are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 220/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony(Through Virtual Conference)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kardam
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

ought to have appreciated that there was only an information which had purportedly been received from the Investigation Wing, Hyderabad but there was no belief, whatsoever, formed by the assessing officer that there was any escapement of income which necessitated the issuance of notice under section ... ought to have appreciated that the assessing officer has not independently made up his mind on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing, Hyderabad, before the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the information with

Shri Rajiv Bothra, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5-2, Ncrb, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 557/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 557/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 Rajiv Bothra, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. B-252, Janta Colony, Ward 5(2), Jaipur. Ncrb, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aazpr 2080 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Written Submissions Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 28/09/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 19/03/2019 For The A.Y. 2013-14, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred At Law As Well As On Facts In Invoking Provisions Of Section 145 For Confirming The Addition Made When The Assessing Officer Had Made The Trading Additions Without Invoking Provisions Of Section 145. 2. That The Ld. A.O. Had Erred At Law As Well As On Facts In Arbitrarily Treating Purchases Made From Maximus Gems, Surya Diam & Navkar India Of Rs. 71,32,000/-, Rs. 10,09,250/- & Rs. 9,01,600/- Respectively In Total Of Rs. 90,42,850/- Are Non-Verifiable Purchases & The Ld. Cit(A) Also Erred In Confirming That The Purchases Made From These Parties Are Non-Verifiable.

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)

facts of the present case, we notice that the assessee had made purchases from three concerns, however, it was found by the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, who had carried the search proceedings on M/s Shri Bhanwar Lal Jain group and on the basis of paper impounded, it was noted ... Investigation Wing, Mumbai that the purchases made by the assessee from the firms namely M/s Maximus Gems, Navkar India and M/s Surya Diam are not genuine purchases as the person on whose premises, search was conducted had affirmed in their statements recorded U/s 132(4) of the Act that they

Kaushal Kishore Bihani, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-45(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 690/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny on account of "suspicious transaction relating to long term capital gain on shares (inputs from investigation wing)". The record shows that the AO had only issued a notice u/s 142(1) dated 07.06.2016 where he raised a general query with regard ... shares of Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. There is no evidence on record to show that the AO took cognizance of the information received from investigation wing with regard to transaction in the shares of Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. There is no specific query by the AO with regard to transaction

ITO 14 (3)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Supergold Properties Pvt Ltd.[Successor of M/S Advaya Tex Trading Pvt Ltd], Mumbai

ITA 177/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2020AY 2011-12
Section 143(1)Section 68

received information from DDIT (Inv.), Unit 2(1) Kolkata that the assessee has received Rs.9,85,00,000/- from Minaxi Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. The investigation wing also informed the AO that the said money was raised bthrough non existent and shell companies which was deposited into several bank accounts maintained ... entity under section 133(6) excepting the confirmation and undated affidavit. According to the AO the assessee has failed to controvert the findings of investigation wing that Minaxi Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. is one of the paper companies and the assessee is one of the beneficiaries as huge funds were found

M/S Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust, Mangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 553/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

being a quasi judicial authority, is expected to arrive at a subjective satisfaction independently on an objective criteria. (xi) While the report of the Investigation Wing might constitute the material, on the basis of which, the Assessing Officer forms the reasons to believe, the process of arriving at such satisfaction ... Court cannot be substituted for the "reasons to believe". (xiv) The decision to reopen the assessment on the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing cannot always be condemned or dubbed as a fishing or roving inquiry. The expression "reason to believe" appearing in Section 147 suggests that

M/S.Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust, Mangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 552/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

being a quasi judicial authority, is expected to arrive at a subjective satisfaction independently on an objective criteria. (xi) While the report of the Investigation Wing might constitute the material, on the basis of which, the Assessing Officer forms the reasons to believe, the process of arriving at such satisfaction ... Court cannot be substituted for the "reasons to believe". (xiv) The decision to reopen the assessment on the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing cannot always be condemned or dubbed as a fishing or roving inquiry. The expression "reason to believe" appearing in Section 147 suggests that

Sangeeta Himmatramka (Legal Heir of Late Sh Rajeev Himmatranka), Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-46(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7645/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Sushma Chowla & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sangeeta Himmatramka Vs. Acit, (Legal Heir Of Late Sh Circle-46(1) Rajeev Himmatramka), New Delhi C-58, Upper Ground Floor, Rohit Kunj, Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034. Pan : Aaaph 9487 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suresh Gupta, C.A. Revenue By Shri Amit Jain, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/10/2020 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.08.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)- 16, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. Sangeeta Himmatramka Vs. Acit A.Y. 2011-12 2 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

Rs.48,61,596/-. Initially the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 28.03.2014. Subsequently, information was received by the AO from Investigation Wing that the assessee has taken accommodation entries during A.Y. 2011- 12. On the basis of the aforesaid information so received, the case was taken

The DCIT1(1), Indore vs. M/S. Avilable Finance Ltd., Indore

ITA 895/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153C

appreciating and not accepting the contention of the assessee that the impugned reopening proceedings initiated merely on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing in this case was on borrowed satisfaction, which is wrong and bad in law. 4.The Learned CITCA) erred in not accepting the contention ... reassessment proceedings primarily raising the contention that, since the same were initiated on the basis of the information/ report received from the investigation wing, Indore after the search was carried out on one Shri Deepak Kalani on Agrawal Transport Corporation (P) Ltd & Ors ITA Nos. 651, C.O.No.35/Ind/2019, 331/Ind/2018 & 895/Ind/2019