← 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

Jediv Cargo Management Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata

In the result this issue is decided in favour of the assessee

ITA 1824/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14 Jediv Cargo Management V/S. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Pvt. Ltd., Unit 802, P.S. Aayakar Bhawan, Continental Building, 8Th Kolkta-700 069 Floor, 83/2/1 Topsia Road, Kolkat-46 [Pan No.Aaccj 0464 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Radhey Shyam Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-04-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 30-04-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.06.2018 Passed In Case No. 1444/Cit(A)-4/2015-16, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest. The Registry Has Already Sent The Assessee An Rpad Notice Dated 27.08.2018 For Today’S Hearing. We Therefore Proceed Ex Parte Against The Assessee. The Case Is Now Taken Up Adjudication On Merits. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities Action Disallowing Its Sec. 35(1)(Ii) Deduction Claim Of Donation Of ₹8.75 Lac Made To School Of Human Genetics & Population

Section 143(3)Section 35(1)(ii)

under: I) Donation has been paid to School of Human Genetics and Population Health (SHPGH) on which survey was carried out by Investigation Wing on 27.01.2015 where it was found that concern is providing entry for bogus donation to various parties. ii) The-Assessee has not shown the donation made

ITO 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Parekh Pipes P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be partly allowed and the cross-objection of the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 5847/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5847/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-4(3)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Parekh Pipes Pvt. Ltd. 158/160, Laxmi Bhuvan, 1St Room No.648, 6Th Floor, Vs. Floor, Opp. Coton Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Exchange, Kalbadevi, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002. Co. No.207/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita. No. 5847/Mum/2016) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ M/S. Parekh Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Ito-4(3)(1) 158/160, Laxmi Bhuvan, 1St Room No.648, 6Th Floor, Vs. Floor, Opp. Coton Exchange, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp9904A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyen (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Pradip Kapasi (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/02/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2019

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyen (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

Thereafter, the case was reopened u/s 147/148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 on the ground of that the AO received the information from Investigation Wing in which it was informed that the information was received from the Sales Tax Department and according to information the assessee had made bogus ... assessee was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of the receipt of information received from the Investigation Wing Mumbai in which it was conveyed that the Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra informed about the various parties whose deals with the bogus purchase business