← 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

Sunita Devi, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward - 2(2), Siliguri

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1268/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sunita Devi…………………………...……………...........…………..………………………………..….…….........Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane 2Nd Floor Suite-213 Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan : Adapg 0346 E] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Siliguri…..……………………………………………..…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 25Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 5Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Siliguri, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt.9Th April , 2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S. Unno Industries Limited. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

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

Jagat Lal Jain, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward - 1(4), Siliguri

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1226/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Lakhotia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kalyan Nath, Addl. CIT
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

Sneha Choudhary, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1218/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sneha Choudhary……………….....……………...........…………..………………………………..….…….......Appellant Room No. 308 3Rd Floor 30, Bentick Street Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aaahu 4655 D] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-36(2), Kolkata.……………………………………………..…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 4Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 5Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 28Th March, 2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S. Unno Industries Ltd. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

Section 10(38)Section 250Section 69C

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

U.C. Choudhary & Others HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1217/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 U C Choudhary & Others Huf...……………...........…………..………………………………..….…….......Appellant Room No. 308 3Rd Floor 30, Bentick Street Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aaahu 4655 D] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-36(4), Kolkata.……………………………………………..…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 4Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 5Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 28Th March, 2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S. Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

Section 10(38)Section 250Section 69C

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

Vireandar Barmecha, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1201/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kalyan Nath, Addl. CIT
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

Vireandar Barmecha HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1200/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kalyan Nath, Addl. CIT
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

Taruna Devi Barmecha, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1199/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kalyan Nath, Addl. CIT
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

M/S. Bhansali Metal & Alloys, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 4408/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshri

referring to facts and figures from A.Y. 2011-12. 4. In this case the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) had received information from the Investigation Wing of the department that the assessee had taken accommodation bills for purchases from the parties declared as hawala operators by Maharashtra Sales Tax Department

DCIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. Manba Finance Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1448/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar SinghFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 133ASection 68

evidence gathered during the search and post search enquiries. He noted that retraction statement of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain have been communicated to the Investigation Wing of the department during the course of search action. Thereafter, he referred to several case laws for the that the said declaration was made

Shri Rajeshkumar P. Trivedi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1129/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhshri Rajeshkumar P. Trivedi Ito - 19(3)(1) 301, Amrut Nagar, Near Jain Matru Mandir, Room No. Mandir Road, Virar (W), Vs. 202, Tardeo Road, Thane, Mumbai-401303. Mumbai-400007. Pan: Acgpt6055H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshri (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

available on record. The ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The ld. DR for the Revenue further submits that Investigation Wing of Income-tax Department and the Sale Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra made a full-fledged enquiry, the parties from whom the assessee

Hemang Hasmukhray Doshi (Prop. of Minolta Chem), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 27(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1117/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Bepari
Section 133(6)

bogus purchase amounting to Rs.25,34,888/-. 3. In this case, the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) had received information from the Investigation Wing of the department that the assessee had taken accommodation bills for purchases from the parties declared as hawala operators by Maharashtra Sales Tax Department. During

Sudhir M.Amlani, Thane vs. ITO WD- 3(5), Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2135/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhsudhir M. Amlani Ito Ward - 3(5) (Prop. Of M/S Krishna Enterprises) Thane. B/401, Greenash Swapna Nagari, Vs. Vasant Garden, Opp. Lbs Marg, Behind Willoms Tower, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080. Pan: Aaqpa7653R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Poojary (AR)For Respondent: Shri S.K. Beparri (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of authorities below. The ld. DR for the Revenue further submitted that Investigation Wing of Income-tax Department and the Sale Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra made a full-fledged enquiry, the parties from whom the assessee has shown

Shri Ravi Padmaram Choudhary, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1130/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhshri Ravi Padmaram Choudhary Ito - 19(3)(1) 9/11, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Carpenter Matru Mandir, Tardeo Street, Near Goal Dewool, Vs. Road, Mumbai-40007. Mumbai-400004. Pan: Adspc4371R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Bepari (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

available on record. The ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The ld. DR for the Revenue further submits that Investigation Wing of Income-tax Department and the Sale Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra made a full-fledged enquiry, the parties from whom the assessee

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Landcraft Developers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 459/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambledcit Vs Landcraft Developers Pvt. Central Circle-18, Room No. 327, Ltd. 309, 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, E-2, 13, Parmesh Corporate Jhandewalan Extn. Towers Community Centre, New Delhi Karkardooma, Delhi Aabcl1391F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

stated by the appellant that all the relevant information and documents were furnished to the AO as well as to the investigation wing and the director of Raffel was also produced. Information under section 133(6) of the Act was also furnished by Raffel and Purushootam Vinimay

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Adarsh Kumar, New Delhi

ITA 5330/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 153C

Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : on the basis of search and seizure operation conducted by Investigation Wing on 22.03.2012 in M/s. Focus Energy Group of cases at the business premises of M/s. Granada Service Pvt. Ltd., M/s. iEnergizer IT Services

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Meerut Credit & Leasing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 609/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Sh. Pramod Jain, CA & Sh. MukulFor Respondent: Ms. Rashmita, Sr. DR
Section 139ASection 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has clearly held that reopening of assessment is justified in case of information received from the Investigation Wing and the onus is on the assessee to establish identity & Creditworthiness of Creditors and Genuineness of transactions. 7. That the grounds of appeal are without

Rajat Exports Import (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5637/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahurajat Exports Import (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito A-134, Arjun Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, Ward 15(2), New Delhi. New Delhi Aaacr0366B Appellant Respondent

Section 68

Court in the case of CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd. 194 Taxman 43 and sought their cross examination. The AO noted that the investigation wing made inquiries from the person from whom assessee has received the amounts and it was found that they are engaged in providing accommodation entries

Shivendra Nagojirao Patankar, (HUF), Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Kolhapur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee as well as the Cross

ITA 260/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.260/Pun/2018 िनधा!रण वष! / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 234BSection 68Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ पुणे म" । आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ

Mina Mehta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 35(4), Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 911/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

amount brought into the books without paying- a single rupee of tax. The Ld. AO has very carefully analyzed the information received from the Investigation Wing, and has recorded the noteworthy features of the Company whose shares were purchased/ sold by the assessee-individual. The economic parameters of the said ... whose statements the revenue relies to make the addition, is provided to the assessee. The addition is made based on a report from the investigation wing. 13. The issue for consideration before us is whether, in such cases, the legal evidence produced by the assessee has to guide our decision

Sanjay Mehta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 36, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1089/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

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

amount brought into the books without paying- a single rupee of tax. The Ld. AO has very carefully analyzed the information received from the Investigation Wing, and has recorded the noteworthy features of the Company whose shares were purchased/ sold by the assessee-individual. The economic parameters of the said ... whose statements the revenue relies to make the addition, is provided to the assessee. The addition is made based on a report from the investigation wing. 13. The issue for consideration before us is whether, in such cases, the legal evidence produced by the assessee has to guide our decision