← 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

ITO Ward 2(3)(7), Surat vs. Pankaj Kumar Jain, Surat

Accordingly, following the same, this ground is appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 268/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.189/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Pankaj Kanwarlal Jain(Huf), V The Income Tax Officer, Pro. Of M/S.Mahek Diamond, S Ward-2(3)(8), Surat. 302, Santok Diamond, . Somnath Mahadevni Sheri, Haripura, Surat. [Pan: Aahhp 8601 E] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.268/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Income Tax Vs Pankaj Kanwarlal Jain(Huf), Officer, . Pro. Of M/S.Mahek Diamond, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat. 302, Santok Diamond, Somnath Mahadevni Sheri, Haripura, Surat. [Pan: Aahhp 8601 E] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.188/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pankaj Kanwarlal Jain, V The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat. Pro. Of M/S.Madhav Gems, S 203, Nishit Diamond Complex, . B/H World Diamond Centre, Hat Falia, Hripura, Surat. [Pan: Aczpj 5175 G] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

providing bogus entries to different persons/concerns including the assessee. The material collected during the course of search in their cases and statements recorded by Investigation Wing have been relied upon against the assessee for making the addition against the assessee. However, it is a fact that all the statements recorded ... Investigation Wing at Mumbai and material collected in the entities of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain Group of cases have not been provided to assessee for rebuttal and no right of cross-examination have been given to assessee to cross-examine such statements. It is well settled Law that if any material

Pankaj Kanwarlal Jain(HUF), Surat vs. ITO Ward 2(3)(8), Surat

Accordingly, following the same, this ground is appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 189/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.189/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Pankaj Kanwarlal Jain(Huf), V The Income Tax Officer, Pro. Of M/S.Mahek Diamond, S Ward-2(3)(8), Surat. 302, Santok Diamond, . Somnath Mahadevni Sheri, Haripura, Surat. [Pan: Aahhp 8601 E] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.268/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Income Tax Vs Pankaj Kanwarlal Jain(Huf), Officer, . Pro. Of M/S.Mahek Diamond, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat. 302, Santok Diamond, Somnath Mahadevni Sheri, Haripura, Surat. [Pan: Aahhp 8601 E] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.188/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pankaj Kanwarlal Jain, V The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat. Pro. Of M/S.Madhav Gems, S 203, Nishit Diamond Complex, . B/H World Diamond Centre, Hat Falia, Hripura, Surat. [Pan: Aczpj 5175 G] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

providing bogus entries to different persons/concerns including the assessee. The material collected during the course of search in their cases and statements recorded by Investigation Wing have been relied upon against the assessee for making the addition against the assessee. However, it is a fact that all the statements recorded ... Investigation Wing at Mumbai and material collected in the entities of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain Group of cases have not been provided to assessee for rebuttal and no right of cross-examination have been given to assessee to cross-examine such statements. It is well settled Law that if any material

Pankaj Kumar Jain, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat

Accordingly, following the same, this ground is appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 188/SRT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.189/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Pankaj Kanwarlal Jain(Huf), V The Income Tax Officer, Pro. Of M/S.Mahek Diamond, S Ward-2(3)(8), Surat. 302, Santok Diamond, . Somnath Mahadevni Sheri, Haripura, Surat. [Pan: Aahhp 8601 E] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.268/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Income Tax Vs Pankaj Kanwarlal Jain(Huf), Officer, . Pro. Of M/S.Mahek Diamond, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat. 302, Santok Diamond, Somnath Mahadevni Sheri, Haripura, Surat. [Pan: Aahhp 8601 E] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.188/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pankaj Kanwarlal Jain, V The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat. Pro. Of M/S.Madhav Gems, S 203, Nishit Diamond Complex, . B/H World Diamond Centre, Hat Falia, Hripura, Surat. [Pan: Aczpj 5175 G] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

providing bogus entries to different persons/concerns including the assessee. The material collected during the course of search in their cases and statements recorded by Investigation Wing have been relied upon against the assessee for making the addition against the assessee. However, it is a fact that all the statements recorded ... Investigation Wing at Mumbai and material collected in the entities of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain Group of cases have not been provided to assessee for rebuttal and no right of cross-examination have been given to assessee to cross-examine such statements. It is well settled Law that if any material

Vinod Kumar Kundanmal, Chennai vs. ITO Ncw 6(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3526/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3526/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Shri Vinod Kumar Kundanmal, 44/40, Ekambareswar Non-Corporate Ward 4(1), Agraharam Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai - 34 Chennai – 600 079. Pan: Aahpj1249H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri R. Padmanabhan, Ca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : 20.11.2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2019

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: 20.11.2019
Section 10(38)

assessee involved in inflating the shares of the company. Moreover, the copy of the investigation report said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata was not furnished to the assessee. On identical circumstances, this Tribunal in the case of Kanhaiyalal & Sons ... Representative also. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessees on the basis of the information said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata with regard to investment made by the assessees in the penny stock company. It is not in dispute that

Sudhir (HUF), Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-9(5), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3520/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3520/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Sudhir Huf Old No.66/1, New No.30/1, Non-Corporate Ward 9(5), Flat No.206, 2Nd Floor, Chennai - 34 Aadhinath Apartments, Jeremiah Road, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007. Pan: Aauhs6796M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri R. Padmanabhan, Ca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : 20.11.2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2019

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: 20.11.2019
Section 10(38)

assessee involved in inflating the shares of the company. Moreover, the copy of the investigation report said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata was not furnished to the assessee. On identical circumstances, this Tribunal in the case of Kanhaiyalal & Sons ... Representative also. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessees on the basis of the information said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata with regard to investment made by the assessees in the penny stock company. It is not in dispute that