← 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

M/S Valsons Metal, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2417/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manjunatha G, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 2417/Mum/2019 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2009-10) M/S Valsons Metal The Income Tax Officer 110, 1/19/Bharja Bhavan, Kika Ward 19(3)(5), Mumbai बनाम/ Street Gulalwadi, Mumbai-400 Vs. 004 (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaaefv3006B अपीलाथी की ओर े/ Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Akhtar Ansari, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16.06.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 16.06.2020 आदेश / O R D E R मिंजूनाथ जी, लेखा दस्य/ Per Manjunatha G, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-29 Mumbai, Dated 28.02.2019 & It Pertains To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “On The Facts & Circumstances Of Case & Law The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Under Section 143 Sub Section 3 R W S 147 Of Valsons Metal; Ay 09-10 Income Tax Act Which Is Passed Against The Principal Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar Ansari, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 69C

investigation to a logical conclusion by carrying out necessary enquires, but he solely Valsons Metal; AY 09-10 relied upon information received from investigation wing, which was further supported by information received from Maharashtra Sales Tax Department. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to accept arguments of both the sides

Ganpat Ghevarchand Mutha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1647/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manjunatha G, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 1647/Mum/2019 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) Shri Ganpat Ghevarchand The Income Tax Officer Mutha Ward 19(1)(3) बनाम/ 59-A, Ardeshar Dady Street, Mumbai Near Alankar Cinema, Opp Vs. Sundar Transport, Mumbai (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aiupm0210G अपीलाथी की ओर े/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Akhtar Ansari, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16.06.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 16.06.2020 आदेश / O R D E R महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30 [In Short Cit(A)], Mumbai, Dated 19.09.2018 & It Pertains To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Law The Hon’Ble Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Assessing Officer’S Action Of Reopening Of The Ita No..1647/Mum/2019 Shri Ganpat Ghevarchand Mutha; Ay 10-11 Completed Assessment Under Section 147 Of The It Act 1961 & The Reason Assigned For Doing So Are Wrong & Contrary To The Provision Of Income Tax Act & Rules Made There Under.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar Ansari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

regards, reopening of assessment, we find that the ld. AO has formed reasonable belief of escapement of income on the basis of report of Investigation Wing, which is ITA No..1647/Mum/2019 Shri Ganpat Ghevarchand Mutha; AY 10-11 further supported by the report of Sales Tax Department, Govt. of Maharashtra ... also failed to take the investigation to a logical conclusion by carrying out necessary enquires, but he solely relied upon information received from investigation wing, which was further supported by information received from Maharashtra Sales Tax Department. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to accept arguments of both the sides