← 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 28(2)(3), Navi Mumbai vs. Neha S Saney, Navi Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 7349/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1710/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Neha S.Saney Commissioner Of Income Tax-22 3Rd Floor, Tower No.6 A-1102, Plot No.5 बनाम/ Sai Pride, Vashi Railway Station Complex Palm Beach Road Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Vs. Sector 18, Sanpada Mumbai – 400 705 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aeapt-8150-L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7349/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer 28(2)(3) Neha S.Saney 3Rd Floor, Tower No.6 A-1102, Plot No.5 बनाम/ Vashi Railway Station Complex Sai Pride, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Palm Beach Road Vs. Sector 18, Sanpada Mumbai – 400 705 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aeapt-8150-L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ritika Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Suman Kumar, Ld.DR
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

that he had not received cash from all flat buyers. He further confirmed the said statement made in the aforesaid letter addressed to the Investigation Wing of the Income tax Department and affirmed the same during his cross examination that he indeed received no cash from the appellant

Neha S. Saney, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 22(3)(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1710/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1710/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Neha S.Saney Commissioner Of Income Tax-22 3Rd Floor, Tower No.6 A-1102, Plot No.5 बनाम/ Sai Pride, Vashi Railway Station Complex Palm Beach Road Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Vs. Sector 18, Sanpada Mumbai – 400 705 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aeapt-8150-L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7349/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer 28(2)(3) Neha S.Saney 3Rd Floor, Tower No.6 A-1102, Plot No.5 बनाम/ Vashi Railway Station Complex Sai Pride, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Palm Beach Road Vs. Sector 18, Sanpada Mumbai – 400 705 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aeapt-8150-L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ritika Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Suman Kumar, Ld.DR
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

that he had not received cash from all flat buyers. He further confirmed the said statement made in the aforesaid letter addressed to the Investigation Wing of the Income tax Department and affirmed the same during his cross examination that he indeed received no cash from the appellant

Income Tax Officer-10(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Idm Agro Bio Tech Limited, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5805/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5805/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito-10(1)(2), Idm Agro Bio Tech Ltd. Room No. 25, Aayakar Bhavan, A/45, Nandjyot Industrial Estate, बनाम/ Ground Floor, M. K. Road, Safed Pool, Sakinaka, Andheri Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabc 17012 C (Revenue) : (Assessee) ""या"ेप सं./C.O. No. 260/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5805/Mum/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Idm Agro Bio Tech Ltd. Ito-10(1)(2), A/45, Nandjyot Industrial Estate, Room No. 25, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Safed Pool, Sakinaka, Andheri Kurla Ground Floor, M. K. Road, Vs. Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabc 17012 C (Assessee) : (Revenue) : Shri N. Hemalatha Revenue By Assessee By : Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 15.11.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

provisions of the Act. The said return was processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information from Investigation wing that the assessee company has taken accommodation entries from various benami concerns operated by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain. As per the information, Shri Pravin ... observing as under: The issues raised in the above ground challenges the re-opening of assessment proceedings. In this case, information is received from Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department that a search and survey action was carried out in the case of Shri Praveen kumar Jain

Income Tax Officer 10(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Readymade Steel India P.Ltd (Now M/S.Kridhan Infra Limited), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 5797/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5797/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-10(1)(4), M/S. Readymade Steel India Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 25B, Ground Floor, (Now - M/S. Kridhan Infra Ltd.) बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, A-13, Omitech House, Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road No.5, Kondivita House, Vs. Marol Midc, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcr 2540 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Hemalatha ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri J. R. Bhatt सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 14.11.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 27.06.2017 & Pertains To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition At 3% Commission Estimated By The A.O. & Same Is Restricted At 1%.

For Appellant: Shri N. HemalathaFor Respondent: Shri J. R. Bhatt
Section 133A

Being satisfied with reasonable cause the delay is hereby condoned. Facts and circumstances eminates from a survey u/s 133A which was conducted by the Investigation Wing on 21.11.2012. From the evidences gathered in this survey, all the assessments/reassessments have been framed. In all these assessments, the additions have been made