← 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

Sunil Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 10(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in the cases of Smt

ITA 2291/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2288/Chny/2019 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sharmila Kanwar, The Income Tax Officer No.26, Ramanuja Nagar, Non-Corporate Ward-10(4) Ayanavaram, Vs. Chennai – 600 034 Chennai – 600 023 [Pan: Aayps 9111L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2289/Chny/2019 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Anil Kumar The Income Tax Officer No.20, Ramanuja Nagar, Non-Corporate Ward-10(1) Aynavaram Vs. Chennai – 600 034 Chennai – 600 023 [Pan: Aagpa 7121C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Padmanabhan. C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 40A(3)

have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the A.O received information from Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata with regard to investment of the assessee in penny stock company, namely, M/s.Concrete Credit Limited. The assessee also admittedly sold ... penny stock company. From the material available on record it appears that a copy of information said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata was not furnished to the assessee. It is not brought on record the relationship of the assessee with the promoters

Sunitha, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 10(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in the cases of Smt

ITA 2290/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2288/Chny/2019 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sharmila Kanwar, The Income Tax Officer No.26, Ramanuja Nagar, Non-Corporate Ward-10(4) Ayanavaram, Vs. Chennai – 600 034 Chennai – 600 023 [Pan: Aayps 9111L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2289/Chny/2019 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Anil Kumar The Income Tax Officer No.20, Ramanuja Nagar, Non-Corporate Ward-10(1) Aynavaram Vs. Chennai – 600 034 Chennai – 600 023 [Pan: Aagpa 7121C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Padmanabhan. C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 40A(3)

have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the A.O received information from Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata with regard to investment of the assessee in penny stock company, namely, M/s.Concrete Credit Limited. The assessee also admittedly sold ... penny stock company. From the material available on record it appears that a copy of information said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata was not furnished to the assessee. It is not brought on record the relationship of the assessee with the promoters

Anil Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 10(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in the cases of Smt

ITA 2289/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2288/Chny/2019 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sharmila Kanwar, The Income Tax Officer No.26, Ramanuja Nagar, Non-Corporate Ward-10(4) Ayanavaram, Vs. Chennai – 600 034 Chennai – 600 023 [Pan: Aayps 9111L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2289/Chny/2019 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Anil Kumar The Income Tax Officer No.20, Ramanuja Nagar, Non-Corporate Ward-10(1) Aynavaram Vs. Chennai – 600 034 Chennai – 600 023 [Pan: Aagpa 7121C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Padmanabhan. C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 40A(3)

have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the A.O received information from Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata with regard to investment of the assessee in penny stock company, namely, M/s.Concrete Credit Limited. The assessee also admittedly sold ... penny stock company. From the material available on record it appears that a copy of information said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata was not furnished to the assessee. It is not brought on record the relationship of the assessee with the promoters

Sharmila Kawar, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 10(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in the cases of Smt

ITA 2288/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2288/Chny/2019 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sharmila Kanwar, The Income Tax Officer No.26, Ramanuja Nagar, Non-Corporate Ward-10(4) Ayanavaram, Vs. Chennai – 600 034 Chennai – 600 023 [Pan: Aayps 9111L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2289/Chny/2019 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Anil Kumar The Income Tax Officer No.20, Ramanuja Nagar, Non-Corporate Ward-10(1) Aynavaram Vs. Chennai – 600 034 Chennai – 600 023 [Pan: Aagpa 7121C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Padmanabhan. C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 40A(3)

have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the A.O received information from Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata with regard to investment of the assessee in penny stock company, namely, M/s.Concrete Credit Limited. The assessee also admittedly sold ... penny stock company. From the material available on record it appears that a copy of information said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata was not furnished to the assessee. It is not brought on record the relationship of the assessee with the promoters