← 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. Jasmine Design Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1286/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1286/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2015-16 Cuke M/S. Jasmine Design Pvt. Ltd. The Ito Vs. 50, Shambha Ji Marg Ward- 5 (1) Inderpuri Colony, Brahmpuri, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Aadcj 0715 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.L. Poddar, Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Paul, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18 /02/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) -2, Jaipur Dated 31-10-2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds. ‘’(1) Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ao As Well As The Ld. Cit(A) Have Erred In Not Accepting The Valuation Report Of The Departmental Valuer Shri Ballabh Mayach Dated 29-11-2014 Submitted By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul, JCIT-DR
Section 133A

vide letter dated 16-12-2014 has specifically highlighted the defects and discrepancies in the valuation determined by the Departmental Approved Valuer. Neither the Investigation Wing nor the AO in the assessment proceeding have even made an attempt to examine and verify the correctness of the fats as highlighted

ITO 17(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Shri. Nagib Hussainy Hussain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 570/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaबनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Ito 17(2)(4) Shri Nagib Husainy R.No. 123B, 1St Floor, Hussain, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Flat No. 8, 2Nd Floor, Md Churchgate, Mumbai. Bldg, 56, Nathlal Parekh Marg, Wood House Road, Coloba, Mumbai – 400005. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaph0986J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant Shri Sourabh Deshpande, Dr By : ""यथ" क" ओर None से/Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तारीख / / / / Date Of 03/02/2020 Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of 14/02 /2020 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri G. Manjunatha- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-58, Mumbai, Dated 20/11/2018 & It Pertains To The A.Y 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

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 570/Mum/2019. Nagib Hussainy Hussain. received from Maharashtra Sales Tax Department. The AO neither pointed out any descrepanices in books

ITO-17(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Mr. Akshay Ramprasad Agrawal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 558/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaबनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Ito 17(1)(1) Mr. Akshay Ramprasad R.No. 115, 1St Floor, Agarwal, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 41, Santam Apartment, 93, Churchgate, Mumbai. Cufee Parade, Mumbai. Pin - 400 005. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aevpa1819G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant Shri Sourabh Deshpande, Dr By : ""यथ" क" ओर None से/Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तारीख / / / / Date Of 03/02/2020 Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of 14/02/2020 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri G. Manjunatha- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-55, Mumbai, Dated 19/11/2018 & It Pertains To The A.Y 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Addition

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

take the investigation to a logical conclusion by carrying out necessary 558/Mum/2019. Akshay Ramprasad Agarwal. enquires, but he solely relied upon information received from investigation wing, which was further supported by information received from Maharashtra Sales Tax Department. The AO neither pointed out any descrepanices in books of accounts

Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rajesh M. Chauhan, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 531/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaबनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Ito 19(3)(1) Shri. Rajesh M. Chauhan Matru Mandir, Room C/O Dodhia Industries, Vs. No. 202, Tardeo Road, 403, Dharam Palace, Mumbai. National Park, Shantivan, Pin – 400 007. Borivali (East), Mumbai – 400 066. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepc3596K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant Shri Sourabh Deshpande, Dr By : ""यथ" क" ओर None से/Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तारीख / / / / Date Of 03/02/2020 Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of 14/02/2020 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri G. Manjunatha- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Of The Ld. Cit (A)-30, Mumbai, Dated 12/10/2018 & It Pertains To The A.Y 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 531

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. The AO neither pointed out any descrepanices in books of accounts nor made

ITO, 19(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Sunita Ankush Kurale, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 529/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaबनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Ito 19(3)(4) Smt. Sunita Ankush Matru Mandir, Room Kurale, Vs. No. 210, Tardeo Road, Sai, Flat No. 4A, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai. Building No. 26, Durgadevi Pin – 400 007. Street Opp Durgadevi Temple, Kumbhawada. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Anwpk6615J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant Shri Sourabh Deshpande, Dr By : ""यथ" क" ओर None से/Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तारीख / / / / Date Of 03/02/2020 Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of 14 /02/2020 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri G. Manjunatha- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Of The Ld. Cit (A)-30, Mumbai, Dated 03/10/2018 & It Pertains To The A.Y 2009-10. 529/Mum/2019. Sunita Ankush Kurale. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

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. The AO neither pointed out any descrepanices in books of accounts nor made

Hubtown Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 3963/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3963/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Hubtown Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit Cen Cir 5(1) Plaza Panchseel, A Wing, 5Th R. No.1928 19Th Floor, Air Vs. Floor, 501 Hughes Road, India Bldg, Nariman Point, Behind Dharam Palace, Mumbai-400021. Grant Road (W), Mumbai- 400007. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca6191D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Revenue By: Shri S. Michael Jerald (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.03.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -53, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri S. Michael Jerald (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

extracted hereinabove, shows that the ld. CIT(A) has gone by the mere factum of receipt of material by the AO from the Investigation Wing of the Department. In „Meenakshi Overseas‟ (supra), under similar facts and circumstances, relying on „Signature Hotels ... Petition filed by the assessee was decided by the Hon‟ble High Court on merits, having taken into consideration the investigation report of the Investigation Wing of the Department, as conveyed to the AO, the assessee‟s record, the Department‟s counter-affidavit (alongwith its annexures) to the Writ Petition