← 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

DCIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Srs Pharmaceuticals P Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 825/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./825/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7728/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./826/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 वष" Dy.Cit-2(3)(2) M/S. Srs Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd. Room No.556, 5Th Floor, 601-605, 6Th Floor, Marathon Max Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Building No.2,Lbs Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mulund Goregaon Link Road, Mulund (W),Mumbai-400080 Pan:Aafcs 4633 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri A.K. Nayak- Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Rahul Hakani सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.03.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:29.03.2017 लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders,Dated 7/10/2014 & 16/9/2014,Of The Cit (A)-6,Mumbai, The Assessing Officer(Ao)Has Filed The Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Ay.S. As The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical,So,We Are Disposing Them The Same By A Single Common Order.Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Supply Of Avant Grade Pharmaceuticals.The Details Of Dates Of Filing Of Returns, Returned Incomes,Dates Of Assessment Etc. Can Be Summarised As Under: Ay Roi Filed On Returned Income Assessment Date Assessed Income 2009-10 26/09/2009 Rs.4.11 Crores 27/03/2014 Rs.5.18 Crores 2010-11 26/09/2010 Rs.6.04 Crores 23/03/2013 Rs.7.63 Crores 2011-12 26/09/2011 Rs.6.55 Crores 27/03/2014 Rs.8.00 Crores

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Nayak- DR
Section 143Section 148

head bogus purchases,amounting to Rs. 1.07 crores.Initially,the return was processed u/s.143 (1) of the Act.Subsequently,the AO received information from the Investigation Wing that the assessee had obtained bogus bills from hawala dealers/builders without actual purchase of goods. He issued a notice u/s.148 of the Act for reopening