← 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

ITO - 18(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bhavana Metal Company, Mumbai

ITA 5973/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5973/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income Tax Officer-18(1)(2) M/S. Bhavana Metal Company Room No.204, 2Nd Floor Shop No.7, Nathuram Poddar Marg Earnest House, Nariman Point Vs. 111/119, Thakurdwar Road, Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 002. Pan:Aaafb 5010 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) C.O. No.70/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5973/Mum/2016) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 वष" आयकर आयकर अपील अपील M/S. Bhavana Metal Company Vs. Income Tax Officer-18(1)(2) Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400 021. (""या"ेपक /Cross Pbjector) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Ram Tiwari-Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Shailesh Parmar-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/06/2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 04/07/2018 लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 28/07/2016 Of The Cit(A)- 29,Mumbai,The Assessing Officer (Ao)Has Filed Present Appeal.The Assessee Has Raised Cross Objection.The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading In Non Ferrous Metals.It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30/10/2007, Declaring Total Income At Rs. Nil.The Assessment Was Completed, U/S. 143(3) (Ii) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act,On 18Th March, 2015, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.50 Lakhs.

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Parmar-ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari-CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that the reassessment proceedings were initiated after the AO received certain information from the investigation wing of the Department, that search and seizure proceedings were carried out in case of BLJ,that statements of RS, GV and BLJ were recorded ... proceedings. It was the duty of the AO to make further enquiries instead of just making additions on the basis of report of the investigation wing. We are of the opinion that the assessee had discharged its onus and that burden of proof was on the AO to negate

DCIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. A.J. Buildcon P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 6204/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6204/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Dy. Cit 15(1)(1), बिधम/ M/S. A. J. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai Room No. 470, 4Th 514, Marathon Max, Opp, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nirmal Life Style, Lbs Maharshi Karve Road, Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagca6548Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri M. V. Rajguru (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.07.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. "On The Farts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Taw, The Ld. C1T(A) Erred Directing The Assessing Officer To Delete The Entire Disallowance Of Rs.67,99Hl3Q/-Mad Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases, Without Appreciating The Fact That The Said Seller Pa Were Found To Be Hawala Operators/ Bogus Billers?, As Per Findings Given By (He Sales A.Y.2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. DanielFor Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguru (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 40A

seller pa were found to be Hawala operators/ bogus billers?, as per findings given by (he Sales A.Y.2009-10 Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, and the Investigation Wing, Income Tax Departs Mumbai. 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred directing ... return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act accepting the returned income. Thereafter an information was received from the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department, Mumbai conveying that the assessee obtained the bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs.67,99,130/- from various parties. Therefore the case was reopened