← 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

Mahesh Rajmal Parekh, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 25(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals for assessment year 2009-2010 are allowed

ITA 2191/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Shri Mukesh Rajmal Parekh, The Asst. Cit- Cir 25(3), 201, 2Nd Floor, Ajit Mansion, 1St Floor, C-13, R.C. Marg, Vile Parle (East), Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400057 Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Pan: Aabpp5098G Mumbai - 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Shri Mahesh Rajmal Parekh, The Asst. Cit- Cir 25(3), 201, 2Nd Floor, Ajit Mansion, 1St Floor, C-13, R.C. Marg, Vile Parle (East), Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400057 Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Pan: Aabpp5098G Mumbai - 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dinkle Hariya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Choudhary Arunkumar Singh (DR)
Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

However, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271 (c) holding that the assessee has revised the return after the investigation made by the Investigation Wing. 4. The assessee challenged the penalty order before the Ld. CIT (A). However, the Ld. CIT (A) after hearing the assessee dismissed the appeal ... holding that the action of the assessee in filing revised return was not voluntary but it was filed after the enquiry conducted by the Investigation Wing. We notice that the AO has accepted the income of the assessee declared in the revised return filed by the assessee in assessment order

Mukesh Rajmal Parekh, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 25(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals for assessment year 2009-2010 are allowed

ITA 2189/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Shri Mukesh Rajmal Parekh, The Asst. Cit- Cir 25(3), 201, 2Nd Floor, Ajit Mansion, 1St Floor, C-13, R.C. Marg, Vile Parle (East), Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400057 Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Pan: Aabpp5098G Mumbai - 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Shri Mahesh Rajmal Parekh, The Asst. Cit- Cir 25(3), 201, 2Nd Floor, Ajit Mansion, 1St Floor, C-13, R.C. Marg, Vile Parle (East), Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400057 Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Pan: Aabpp5098G Mumbai - 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dinkle Hariya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Choudhary Arunkumar Singh (DR)
Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

However, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271 (c) holding that the assessee has revised the return after the investigation made by the Investigation Wing. 4. The assessee challenged the penalty order before the Ld. CIT (A). However, the Ld. CIT (A) after hearing the assessee dismissed the appeal ... holding that the action of the assessee in filing revised return was not voluntary but it was filed after the enquiry conducted by the Investigation Wing. We notice that the AO has accepted the income of the assessee declared in the revised return filed by the assessee in assessment order