← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota

ITA 1101/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2011-12
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

contended that the Assessing Officer has made the addition merely on the basis of the statements recorded by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata and without any incriminating material found or seized during the search and seizure action in the case of the assessee. The assessee also raised objection against the additions ... clearly evident from the innumerable evidences which came to the fore in the numerous investigations, enquiries, search and survey actions carried out by the Investigation Wing of the Department that the Assessing Officer received information from the Investigation Wing Kolkata regarding the involvement of KBM Group (assessee) in obtaining entries

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota

ITA 1100/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

contended that the Assessing Officer has made the addition merely on the basis of the statements recorded by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata and without any incriminating material found or seized during the search and seizure action in the case of the assessee. The assessee also raised objection against the additions ... clearly evident from the innumerable evidences which came to the fore in the numerous investigations, enquiries, search and survey actions carried out by the Investigation Wing of the Department that the Assessing Officer received information from the Investigation Wing Kolkata regarding the involvement of KBM Group (assessee) in obtaining entries

M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 1026/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

contended that the Assessing Officer has made the addition merely on the basis of the statements recorded by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata and without any incriminating material found or seized during the search and seizure action in the case of the assessee. The assessee also raised objection against the additions ... clearly evident from the innumerable evidences which came to the fore in the numerous investigations, enquiries, search and survey actions carried out by the Investigation Wing of the Department that the Assessing Officer received information from the Investigation Wing Kolkata regarding the involvement of KBM Group (assessee) in obtaining entries

M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 1025/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

contended that the Assessing Officer has made the addition merely on the basis of the statements recorded by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata and without any incriminating material found or seized during the search and seizure action in the case of the assessee. The assessee also raised objection against the additions ... clearly evident from the innumerable evidences which came to the fore in the numerous investigations, enquiries, search and survey actions carried out by the Investigation Wing of the Department that the Assessing Officer received information from the Investigation Wing Kolkata regarding the involvement of KBM Group (assessee) in obtaining entries

M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 1024/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

contended that the Assessing Officer has made the addition merely on the basis of the statements recorded by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata and without any incriminating material found or seized during the search and seizure action in the case of the assessee. The assessee also raised objection against the additions ... clearly evident from the innumerable evidences which came to the fore in the numerous investigations, enquiries, search and survey actions carried out by the Investigation Wing of the Department that the Assessing Officer received information from the Investigation Wing Kolkata regarding the involvement of KBM Group (assessee) in obtaining entries

DCIT, Rohtak vs. M/S. Kla India Public Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2850/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2011-12

For Appellant: Smt. Naina Soin Kapila, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Kamal, Adv

documents were produced by the assessee related to share transactions. Thus, CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the findings of AO and Investigation Wing. 3. The applicant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify, delete and or change any of the above grounds on or before the date of hearing

Shri Ajay Gupta (HUF), Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir. 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2147/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri RC Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri BB Rajendra Prasad, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

action under section 132 of the Act was carried out on the Loha Ispat Group of cases on 22.02.2012 and on subsequent date by investigation wing of Income Tax Department, Mumbai. Admittedly, there is no search warrant in the case of the assessee i.e. Ajay Gupta (HUF) and accordingly notice ... reads as under: - “Ajay Gupta (HUF) 27.09.2012 AY 2006-07 to 2011-12 A search and seizure action u/s 132 was carried out by investigation wing in the case of M/s Loha Ispat ltd. on 22.02.2012. Various premises were covered and it was seen that Ajay Gupta

Income Tax Officer-19(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ashish V. Gandhi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4893/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ito-19(1)(2), Room No. 204, Ashish V. Gandhi 501, Matrumandir, Mumbai- Vs. Shirin Apartments, 400020. Tardeo, Mumbai- 400007. Pan No. Aafog5444F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Assessee By : Mr. R.S. Choksi & Ms. M.K. Patel, Ars Date Of Hearing : 06/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2019

For Appellant: Mr. R.S. Choksi & Ms. M.K. Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

International, which are group concern of M/s Bhanwarlal group of companies, who were in the business of providing accommodation entries as established by the investigation wing consequent to search action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S. Narsi Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3547/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

surrender of undisclosed income was made in view of various discrepancies found in the course of search vide letter dated 26.09.2008 before the Investigation Wing and not before the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings. Since the assessee failed to specify the manner in which the undisclosed income surrendered

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Asis Plywood Pvt. Ltd(Formerly Known As M/S Metro Doors Pvt. Ltd), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department stands

ITA 2144/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income M/S Asis Plywood Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Circle 3(2), (Formerly Known As M/S New Delhi. Metro Doors Pvt. Ltd.), Vs E-430, Greater Kailash-I, Delhi-110048 Appellant Respondent Department By: Shri Sridhar Dora, Sr. Dr Assessee By: Shri Sanjeev Jain, Ca Date Of Hearing: 22.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2019

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Dora, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

consideration was originally filed on 22.02.2007 declaring total income at nil. Subsequently, information was received by the department vide letter dated 20.3.2013 from the Investigation Wing of the department that the assessee had Assessment year 2006-07 raised share capital and share premium totalling ... during the year under consideration but had not filed any return of income. Further, the Assessing Officer received another information from the Investigation Wing that the assessee had received accommodation entries of Rs. 19,00,500/- from one Shri S.K. Jain who had been found to be providing accommodation entries

ITO, WD-5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Purbasa Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1179/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2008-09 Income Tax Officer, V/S. M/S Purbasa Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 5/5 Clive Row, 4Th Ward-5(2), P-7, Chowringhee Square, Floor, Room No.26, 8Th Floor, Room No.6, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700 069 [Pan No.Aaecp 1267B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 15-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 25-01-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.06.2015, Passed In Case No.1575/Cit(A)-2/2015-16, In Proceedings U/S. 144 R.W.S 263 R.W.S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Revere The Cit(A)’S Action Deleting Unexplained Cash Credits Addition Of ₹3.14 Lac Made In The Course Of Assessment Framed On 19.03.2015. The Assessee’S Case Before Assessing Officer Was That This Sum Represented Its Share Application / Premium Raised During The Course Of Relevant Previous Year. The Assessing Officer Held In The Course Of Assessment That Assessee Had Failed To Prove Identity, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Investors

Section 144Section 68

explanation given by the assessee company. The only evidence which has been referred by the AO is statement of third parties recorded by the Investigation Wing. Admittedly these statements were not recorded by the AO but were recorded by the Investigation Wing at the back of the assessee

Rng Impex Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-20(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5317/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition made by the AO relying on the report of the investigation wing made at the back of the assessee without giving an opportunity of cross examination.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return ... processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). Subsequently, a letter dated 18.3.2013 information was received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee is a beneficiary of bogus accommodation entries received from companies intimating therein that Sh. Surinder Kumar Jina had been providing accommodation entries

Ramesh Kumar Goyal HUF, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Hisar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1983/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillaidr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar Ito, H.No.467, Urban Estate-Ii, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125005

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

Income Tax Act, 1961 through CASS system of ITD for verification of suspicious long term capital gain on shares (inputs from investigation Wing). Statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 18.09.2015 was issued and served upon the assessee. Subsequent notices ... From the examination of the above Assessment Order it can be deciphered that the Assessing Officer has passively mentioned about the inputs from investigation wing regarding the suspicious long term capital gains on shares and nothing beyond that. 2 3. Post the assessment proceedings, the Ld. Principal CIT issued

Ramesh Kumar, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Hisar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1982/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillaidr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar Ito, H.No.467, Urban Estate-Ii, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125005

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

Income Tax Act, 1961 through CASS system of ITD for verification of suspicious long term capital gain on shares (inputs from investigation Wing). Statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 18.09.2015 was issued and served upon the assessee. Subsequent notices ... From the examination of the above Assessment Order it can be deciphered that the Assessing Officer has passively mentioned about the inputs from investigation wing regarding the suspicious long term capital gains on shares and nothing beyond that. 2 3. Post the assessment proceedings, the Ld. Principal CIT issued

Lalit Kumar Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-46(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3509/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 131

surmises. No material has been brought on record to show that the assessee was involved in the racket which was unearthed by the Investigation Wing of the department. The revenue could not point out that in anywhere in the statement of Sh. Sanjay Vora and/or Sh. Praveen Kumar Agarwal ... several persons namely Sh. Anil Khemka, Sh. Sanjay Vohra and Sh. Bidyoot Sarkar as referred in the assessment order and the report of the Investigation Wing were not confronted to the assessee and above statements were also not subject to cross-examination on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, such evidences

Kushal Jalan, Howrah vs. DCIT, Circle - 47, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1761/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 1760 & 1761/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kushal Jalan……….…................…………………………………....………………...…………………….….Appellant [Pan : Agvpj 2784 R ] Ito, Ward-47(2), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Respondent.

Section 10(38)Section 250

specific to any assessee. The assessee was not confronted with any statement or material alleged to be the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing of the department and which were the basis on which conclusion were drawn against the assessee. Copy of the report was also not given

Kushal Jalan, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 47(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1760/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 1760 & 1761/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kushal Jalan……….…................…………………………………....………………...…………………….….Appellant [Pan : Agvpj 2784 R ] Ito, Ward-47(2), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Respondent.

Section 10(38)Section 250

specific to any assessee. The assessee was not confronted with any statement or material alleged to be the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing of the department and which were the basis on which conclusion were drawn against the assessee. Copy of the report was also not given

Sunita Jalan, Howrah vs. DCIT, Circle - 47, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1758/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 1758/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sunita Jalan……….…................…………………………………....………………...…………………….….Appellant [Pan : Acrpj 7136 P ] Dcit, Circle-47, Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Respondent.

Section 10(38)Section 250

specific to any assessee. The assessee was not confronted with any statement or material alleged to be the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing of the department and which were the basis on which conclusion were drawn against the assessee. Copy of the report was also not given

Ram Niwas Taparia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 22(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1721/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 1721/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ram Niwal Taparia…................…………………………………....………………...…………………….….Appellant [Pan :Ablpt 4330 J] Income Tax Officer, Ward-22(4), Kolkata……….....................................…....….…………..…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Suraj J Jhan, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Section 10(38)Section 250

specific to any assessee. The assessee was not confronted with any statement or material alleged to be the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing of the department and which were the basis on which conclusion were drawn against the assessee. Copy of the report was also not given

S.R. Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 4(2), Kolkata

ITA 1408/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

Officer disallowed this loss based on a statement from Shri Sachet Saraf, Director of M/s. Marigold Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. recorded on 23.03.2013 by the Investigation Wing which had carried on a Search & Seizure Operation under section 132 of the Act. It is stated that Shri Sachet Saraf admitted that