← 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

Govind Agarwal. HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 826/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4531,4566,876,877,878/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2006-07, 2007-08, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2005-06) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Manidevi Agarwal, 720, A- 1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakpa 4962 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4528/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal, 701, A-1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adopa 4038 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.873,874/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal(Huf), 720/A-5, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aiepa 3109 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) 876,828,4566,4547,218/11 &957/13&Co203.13

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

218/11 &957/13&CO203.13 assessee or books not produced to the AO earlier or the incriminating material gathered by the investigation wing of the revenue. Considering the legal propositions place before us by the assessee’s counsel, we are of the opinion, such assessments or additions are unsustainable ... either the unaccounted books of accounts of the assessee or books not produced to the AO earlier or the incriminating material gathered by the investigation wing of the revenue. Considering the legal propositions place before us by the assessee’s counsel, we are of the opinion, such assessments or additions

Subhash Khattar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 902/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2006-07 Subhash Khattar, Vs. Acit, B-66, Naraina Ind. Area, Central Circle-18, Phase-Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aafpk3807R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri U.K. Shukla, Adv. Department By: Shri B.K. Singh, Cit( Dr) Date Of Hearing : 06 .04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 :06.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On Several Grounds Mainly Involving The Issues; (I) As To Whether Learned Cit(Appeals) Was Justified In Upholding The Validity Of Jurisdiction Of The Assessing Officer Assumed Under Sec. 153A & (Ii) The Addition Of Rs.3,21,000 Made On Account Of Unexplained Source Of Investment In Cash In A Project On The Basis Of Material Found During The Search At The Premises Of Aerens Group. 2. Heard & Considered The Arguments Advanced By The Parties In View Of Orders Of The Authorities Below, Material Available On Record & The Decisions Relied Upon.

For Appellant: Shri U.K. Shukla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, CIT( DR)
Section 153A

justify the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that vide letter dated 21.2.2012, the authorized representative of the assessee has admitted before the Investigation Wing that the alleged investment was made. He submitted that most of the other investors in Aerens Group had admitted the cash payment made

Rasiklal Hiralal & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our directions as discussed above

ITA 260/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Rasiklal Hiralal & Co. P. Ltd., Ito 4(3)(2) Ec-4051 & 4053 Bharat Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Diamond Bourse, Bkc Mumbai- Vs. Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacr1854J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Smt. Arti Visanji & Shri Vijay Kumar S. Biyani (Ar) Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 16/06/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 29/06/2016

Section 133(6)Section 137Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

from a party namely M/s. Mayur Exports. It was noted by the AO that during the course of search operations carried out by the investigation wing of the Income Tax Department at various places with respect to finding out persons involved in fraudulent billing activities, it was revealed that ... appellant company from M/s. Mayur Exports. The primary reasons for such additions are as under; 1. During course of the investigation, the Investigation wing at Mumbai found number of companies who are providing bogus purchases bills to various beneficiaries for a commission 2. Such companies/firms were controlled, managed and operated

Rasiklal Hiralal & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our directions as discussed above

ITA 259/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Rasiklal Hiralal & Co. P. Ltd., Ito 4(3)(2) Ec-4051 & 4053 Bharat Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Diamond Bourse, Bkc Mumbai- Vs. Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacr1854J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Smt. Arti Visanji & Shri Vijay Kumar S. Biyani (Ar) Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 16/06/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 29/06/2016

Section 133(6)Section 137Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

from a party namely M/s. Mayur Exports. It was noted by the AO that during the course of search operations carried out by the investigation wing of the Income Tax Department at various places with respect to finding out persons involved in fraudulent billing activities, it was revealed that ... appellant company from M/s. Mayur Exports. The primary reasons for such additions are as under; 1. During course of the investigation, the Investigation wing at Mumbai found number of companies who are providing bogus purchases bills to various beneficiaries for a commission 2. Such companies/firms were controlled, managed and operated

Rasiklal Hiralal & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our directions as discussed above

ITA 258/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Rasiklal Hiralal & Co. P. Ltd., Ito 4(3)(2) Ec-4051 & 4053 Bharat Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Diamond Bourse, Bkc Mumbai- Vs. Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacr1854J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Smt. Arti Visanji & Shri Vijay Kumar S. Biyani (Ar) Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 16/06/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 29/06/2016

Section 133(6)Section 137Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

from a party namely M/s. Mayur Exports. It was noted by the AO that during the course of search operations carried out by the investigation wing of the Income Tax Department at various places with respect to finding out persons involved in fraudulent billing activities, it was revealed that ... appellant company from M/s. Mayur Exports. The primary reasons for such additions are as under; 1. During course of the investigation, the Investigation wing at Mumbai found number of companies who are providing bogus purchases bills to various beneficiaries for a commission 2. Such companies/firms were controlled, managed and operated