← 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

Empee Sugars & Chemicals Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2576/CHNY/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 2576/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 M/S. Empee Sugars & Chemicals Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Empee Towers, 59, Harris Road, Vs. Income Tax, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Central Circle I(2), Chennai. [Pan: Aabcb5658G] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Benny John, Cit - Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central I, Chennai, Dated 30.07.2014 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture & Sale Of Sugar & Filed Its Return Of Income On 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Benny John, CIT - DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

bills and vouchers, the assessee was allowed to claim depreciation. With regard to the issue of transaction, as per the information received from the Investigation Wing, Pune, PIL provided accommodation entries to its customers including Empee Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. by booking non-genuine bills against plants and machineries supplied ... assessee that there were no transactions with the above said company, but the ld. CIT has observed that information received from the Investigation Wing, Pune reveals that M/s. PIL has provided 5 I.T.A. No. 2576/M/14 accommodation entries to its customers including the assessee by booking non-genuine bills against plants