← 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

DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Energy Development Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1368/KOL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1368/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Singh, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Bhandari, FCA
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

fact that various petty companies were found indulging in providing accommodation entries to business companies after various enquiries/search & Survey operation conducted by Income Tax Investigation Wing from time to time. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has ignoring the statement of Shri Arun ... facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred by ignoring the fact that Shri Nangalia, in course of investigation by the Investigation Wing, failed to explain the source of money being invested in different companies and accepted indulging himself in the activity of providing accommodation entries through

Ritika Goel, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 36(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3868/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Ritika Goel, Vs. Ito, A-2/1, Princess Road, Model Ward-36(4), New Delhi Town -1, New Delhi Pan :Ajipa1921F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr.Dr

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

assessee. The Assessing Officer has mentioned in the order that this view has been formed on the basis of the enquiry report of the investigation wing of Income-tax Department, Kolkata carried out in the case of accommodation entry providers. The Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the submission

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kanodia Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4858/DEL/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillaia N D Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2003-04 Ito Kanodia Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Ward-14(2), Room No. 308, F- 108, Gali No. 8, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate Vs. Near Shiv Mandir, Pandav Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 68

Brief facts of the case are that the case has been reopened by the AO based on the information issued from the Investigation Wing that the assessee has received amounts from the entry operator. The reasons recorded are as under: “Investigations were conducted by the Investigation wing of the Department ... entries/share capital/gifts/sale consideration has also not been established as they have been seen to be man of no means. 4. The said report of Investigation wing of the Department:, on the investigations conducted in the case of various accommodation entry provicers along with the list of the beneficiaries of their

Rajendra Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2702/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 2702/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10) Rajendra Aggarwal Vs Dcit 23/5, Central Circle-5 Shakti Nagar New Delhi New Delhi (Respondent) Adpqa4147F (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. V. K. Bindal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2019

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271Section 271ASection 272(2)Section 274

facts clearly show that this sum of Rs 6.641 lakhs has no relation with the cash / jewellery but part of the ‘settlement’ with the investigation wing so as to ease departmental pressure, to buy peace and end litigation etc. Otherwise, there was no occasion for filing any letter with ... investigation wing as the authorised officer / investigation wing becomes function officio after completion of the searches which had concluded on a much earlier date. 12. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee disclosed Rs. 45,00,000/- in his return of income on account of purchase of shares

Nirmal Sharma, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-16(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4931/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri SL Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

facts and circumstances of the case, the AO has erred, both on facts and in law in 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 ... case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS in order to examine “suspicion long term capital gain on shares (inputs from investigation wing)” under the scope complete scrutiny. Notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) was issued on 12.4.2016 and in response

Theacit, Cir-1(1), Ekm, Ernakulam vs. Sri.E.M.Johny, Kothamangalam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 453/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

Theatre. 8.4 According to Ld. DR, the retraction statement dated 5/5/1999 seems to be only an afterthought. The matter having been taken by the Investigation Wing, the assessee on being enquired by the officers of the Wing declared the correct facts. Thereafter, retracted the statement, raising some not very strong

The ACIT, Circle-1(1), Ernakulam vs. Sri.Mathai Xavier, Kothamangalam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 451/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

Theatre. 8.4 According to Ld. DR, the retraction statement dated 5/5/1999 seems to be only an afterthought. The matter having been taken by the Investigation Wing, the assessee on being enquired by the officers of the Wing declared the correct facts. Thereafter, retracted the statement, raising some not very strong

The ACIT, Cir-1(1), Ernakulam vs. Sri.Jose Mathew, M/S.E.V.Mthai & Sons, Kothamangalam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 450/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

Theatre. 8.4 According to Ld. DR, the retraction statement dated 5/5/1999 seems to be only an afterthought. The matter having been taken by the Investigation Wing, the assessee on being enquired by the officers of the Wing declared the correct facts. Thereafter, retracted the statement, raising some not very strong

The ACIT, Circle-1(1), Ernakulam vs. Sri.E.M.Paul, Edakattukudiyil, Kothamangalam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 449/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

Theatre. 8.4 According to Ld. DR, the retraction statement dated 5/5/1999 seems to be only an afterthought. The matter having been taken by the Investigation Wing, the assessee on being enquired by the officers of the Wing declared the correct facts. Thereafter, retracted the statement, raising some not very strong

The ITO, WD-2, Thodupuzha vs. Sri.Tomy Mathew Partner of Mathai Sons, Kothamangalam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 419/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

Theatre. 8.4 According to Ld. DR, the retraction statement dated 5/5/1999 seems to be only an afterthought. The matter having been taken by the Investigation Wing, the assessee on being enquired by the officers of the Wing declared the correct facts. Thereafter, retracted the statement, raising some not very strong

The ITO, WD-2, Thodupuzha vs. Sri.E.J.Sony, Kothamangalam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 355/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

Theatre. 8.4 According to Ld. DR, the retraction statement dated 5/5/1999 seems to be only an afterthought. The matter having been taken by the Investigation Wing, the assessee on being enquired by the officers of the Wing declared the correct facts. Thereafter, retracted the statement, raising some not very strong

The ITO, Ward-2, Thodupuzha vs. Sri.Martin Johny, Kothamangalam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 354/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

Theatre. 8.4 According to Ld. DR, the retraction statement dated 5/5/1999 seems to be only an afterthought. The matter having been taken by the Investigation Wing, the assessee on being enquired by the officers of the Wing declared the correct facts. Thereafter, retracted the statement, raising some not very strong

Sri.Essa Ismail Sait, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Cir-2(1), Ernakulam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 605/COCH/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

Theatre. 8.4 According to Ld. DR, the retraction statement dated 5/5/1999 seems to be only an afterthought. The matter having been taken by the Investigation Wing, the assessee on being enquired by the officers of the Wing declared the correct facts. Thereafter, retracted the statement, raising some not very strong

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Om Metal Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 606/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri B.V. Maheshwari (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the statement recorded by Investigation Wing, Delhi of Shri Padam Singhee.” 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee company is one of the shareholders and holds ... case of Shiv Vani Group of cases was 5 ITO vs. M/s Om Metal Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. conducted on 06.01.2011 by the Investigation Wing, Delhi. During the course of search at the residence of Shri Ramesh Kumar Somani (Director of M/s. Metro Management Services

DCIT, Circle-2, Meerut vs. Reeta Singhal, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4819/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. S. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-2, Vs Reeta Singhal, Meerut. A-312, Prahlad Vatika, Khair Nagar, Meerut. Pan : Abtps 0061P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sharma, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: S/Shri Raj Kumar & Shri

sale of 5 lac shares to M/s. Mayank Medilab (P) Ltd. This was done only on the ground that information was received from Investigation Wing that Shri Pradeep Kumar Jindal, Shri Prem Arora Group, Shri Sajjan Kumar Jain and Shri Pawan Arya and his family members were found to have ... cross-examination. In the entire assessment order, he found that only substantive material against the assessee relating to this amount was the report of Investigation Wing which was based on the statements of 3rd parties, recorded behind the back of the assessee and which have been used adversely

Akshay Jain, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4199/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar and PushkarFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.D.R
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

stock exchange for providing such kind of an entries to the so called investors. Such kind of companies have also been reported by Kolkata Investigation Wing that the scrip of these companies have frequently used for providing accommodation entry. Thus, addition as sustained by the ld. CIT (A) needs

Shri Hulash Chand Rajesh Kumar HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 34(3), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1635/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

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

Shri Hulash Chand Lalwani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 34(3), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1634/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

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

Sushila Devi Agarwal, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward - 2(2), Siliguri

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1081/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sushila Devi Agarwal.............................….……...........…………..……………….…...……..….…….......Appellant C/O North Bengal Agency Mangturam Road Siliguri – 734 005 [Pan : Aclpa 0105 F] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Siliguri….……......……….........…………..………….…............Respondent

Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68

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

ITO, WD-1(1), Siliguri vs. M/S Cachar King Plantations Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1041/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2019AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Siliguri..………......……….........…………..………….…................Appellant Vs. M/S. Cachar King Plantations Pvt. Ltd..……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….......Respondent Situvita Tea Factory Bidhan Nagar Siliguri [Pan : Aabcc 0744 P] Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16Th , 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Siliguri, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 27/05/2015, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Investment In Shares & Securities. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, It E-Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 22/09/2012, Disclosing Total Business Income At Rs.3,71,534/-. The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, On 30/03/2015, Making An Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit To The Tune Of Rs.1,30,00,000/-, U/S 68 Of The Act. This Was Set Off Against Carried Forward Losses & Gross Total Balance Was Determined At –Nil- Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal. The Ld. First Appellate Authority Deleted The Addition For The Reasons Given In His Order.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

same. This would be apparent from the observations of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order to the following effect:- ''Investigation made by the Investigation Wing of the department clearly showed that this was nothing but a sham transaction of accommodation entry. The assessee was asked to explain ... been duly considered and found not acceptable. This entry remains unexplained in the hands of the assessee as has been arrived by the Investigation wing of the department. As such entries of Rs.5~50/000/- received by the assessee are treated as an unexplained cash credit in the hands