← All Phrases

“investigation wing”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 14712,583 judgments

The decision most relied on for investigation wing is PCIT v. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. (396 ITR 5), cited in 272 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on investigation wing

PCIT v. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd.
396 ITR 5 · 2017 · High Court
272
citing judgments

Reassessment based solely on information from the Investigation Wing, without the Assessing Officer conducting further inquiry or demonstrating an independent application of mind, is unjustified and invalid.

109 TTJ 700 (Del) SMC Share Brokers Ltd. v. DCIT
293 ITR 43 · 2007 · High Court
264
citing judgments

Where an assessment order is merely a copy-paste of observations from an investigation wing's appraisal report without independent verification, it is not a valid basis for making additions to income.

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.

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.

Judgments citing investigation wing

Rajkishore Maniyar, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3191/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 148Section 250

reasons for re-opening furnished to the Appellant clearly show that the re- opening was done mechanically on the basis of report of investigation wing without any further inquiries made and the Assessment concluded for the Appellant in the year 2006-07 without due application of mind ... order purporting to dispose off objections to the reason for re- opening is not a speaking order but merely depends upon the investigation wing report. 4 Rajkishore Maniyar, Mumbai. 8. The Re-opening of the Assessment u/s 148 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, and the consequent Assessment order

Rajkishore Maniyar, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2489/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 148Section 250

reasons for re-opening furnished to the Appellant clearly show that the re- opening was done mechanically on the basis of report of investigation wing without any further inquiries made and the Assessment concluded for the Appellant in the year 2006-07 without due application of mind ... order purporting to dispose off objections to the reason for re- opening is not a speaking order but merely depends upon the investigation wing report. 4 Rajkishore Maniyar, Mumbai. 8. The Re-opening of the Assessment u/s 148 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, and the consequent Assessment order

Rajkishore Maniyar, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2487/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 148Section 250

reasons for re-opening furnished to the Appellant clearly show that the re- opening was done mechanically on the basis of report of investigation wing without any further inquiries made and the Assessment concluded for the Appellant in the year 2006-07 without due application of mind ... order purporting to dispose off objections to the reason for re- opening is not a speaking order but merely depends upon the investigation wing report. 4 Rajkishore Maniyar, Mumbai. 8. The Re-opening of the Assessment u/s 148 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, and the consequent Assessment order

Deveshi Sharma, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 34(1), Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1446/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the NFAC who vide order dated 10-02-2025 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149

income declaring at Rs. 4,22,080/- on 29-07-2016 u/s 139(1) of the act. The information received from INSIGHT portal by Investigation wing under high risk parameter that assessee has received long term capital gain relating to the sale of shares which has been found fictitious

DCIT, Circle-14(2), New Delhi vs. Kohinoor Foods Ltd., Faridabad

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s Appeal stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 587/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accoutant Member Dcit, Circle-14(2), New Delhi Vs. M/S Kohinoor Foods Ltd. 10Th Floor, Pinnacle Room No. 323, C.R. Building, New Delhi – 2 Business Tower, Suraj Kund Road, Faridabad Haryana-121001 (Pan: Aaacs2470D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S Kohinoor Foods Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 14(2), 10Th Floor, Pinnacle New Delhi Business Tower, Suraj Kund Road, Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Pan: Aaacs2470D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Sh. Salil Kapoor, Utkarsha Kumar Gupta, Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates Department By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.09.2025

For Appellant: S/Sh. Salil Kapoor, Utkarsha KumarFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 68Section 92C

thus totaling to Rs. 60,23,01,491/-. Thereafter, reassessment proceeding in the case of the assessee were initiated upon the information received from Investigation Wing, Delhi suggesting that the assessee has taken accommodation entry amounting to Rs. 10,13,09,820/- from Sh. Rajinder Prasad Proprietor of Rajdhani Sales ... merits. It was the contention of the assessee that the addition in dispute has been made on the basis of the report of Investigation Wing, treating the purchases shown by the appellant from Rajdhani Sales Corporation as bogus, due to the cash withdrawal by them. It was further contended that

Kohinoor Foods Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Circle-14(2), New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s Appeal stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 149/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accoutant Member Dcit, Circle-14(2), New Delhi Vs. M/S Kohinoor Foods Ltd. 10Th Floor, Pinnacle Room No. 323, C.R. Building, New Delhi – 2 Business Tower, Suraj Kund Road, Faridabad Haryana-121001 (Pan: Aaacs2470D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S Kohinoor Foods Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 14(2), 10Th Floor, Pinnacle New Delhi Business Tower, Suraj Kund Road, Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Pan: Aaacs2470D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Sh. Salil Kapoor, Utkarsha Kumar Gupta, Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates Department By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.09.2025

For Appellant: S/Sh. Salil Kapoor, Utkarsha KumarFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 68Section 92C

thus totaling to Rs. 60,23,01,491/-. Thereafter, reassessment proceeding in the case of the assessee were initiated upon the information received from Investigation Wing, Delhi suggesting that the assessee has taken accommodation entry amounting to Rs. 10,13,09,820/- from Sh. Rajinder Prasad Proprietor of Rajdhani Sales ... merits. It was the contention of the assessee that the addition in dispute has been made on the basis of the report of Investigation Wing, treating the purchases shown by the appellant from Rajdhani Sales Corporation as bogus, due to the cash withdrawal by them. It was further contended that

Udita Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-29, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2017/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Section 10(38), in a pre-planned manner to evade taxes. The AO extensively relied upon the search and survey operations conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department in Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai and Ahmedabad on penny stocks, which sets out the modus operandi adopted in the business ... only approved the order of the AO, following the same reasoning, and relying upon the report of the Investigation Wing. Lastly, reliance placed by the Revenue on SumanPoddar v. ITO (supra) and SumatiDayal v. CIT (supra) is of no assistance. Upon examining the judgment of SumanPoddar (supra) at length

M/S. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure (Panipat) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2409/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Respondent: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Advocate &
Section 143(3)Section 153D

fact that the as per the CBDT guideline F. No. 286/161/2006-IT (Inv. II) dt. 22.12.2006, copy of appraisal report is shared by Investigation Wing with both that the assessing officer and Joint CIT. In fact, CBDT guideline dt. 22.12.2006 (Copy enclosed) on the subject of the search and Seizure Assessments

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Tdi Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3953/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Respondent: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Advocate &
Section 143(3)Section 153D

fact that the as per the CBDT guideline F. No. 286/161/2006-IT (Inv. II) dt. 22.12.2006, copy of appraisal report is shared by Investigation Wing with both that the assessing officer and Joint CIT. In fact, CBDT guideline dt. 22.12.2006 (Copy enclosed) on the subject of the search and Seizure Assessments

M/S. Tdi Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3935/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Respondent: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Advocate &
Section 143(3)Section 153D

fact that the as per the CBDT guideline F. No. 286/161/2006-IT (Inv. II) dt. 22.12.2006, copy of appraisal report is shared by Investigation Wing with both that the assessing officer and Joint CIT. In fact, CBDT guideline dt. 22.12.2006 (Copy enclosed) on the subject of the search and Seizure Assessments

M/S. Taneja Developers & Infra Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5579/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153D

fact that the as per the CBDT guideline F. No. 286/161/2006-IT (Inv. II) dt. 22.12.2006, copy of appraisal report is shared by Investigation Wing with both that the assessing officer and Joint CIT. In fact, CBDT guideline dt. 22.12.2006 (Copy enclosed) on the subject of the search and Seizure Assessments

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5560/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Respondent: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Advocate &
Section 143(3)Section 153D

fact that the as per the CBDT guideline F. No. 286/161/2006-IT (Inv. II) dt. 22.12.2006, copy of appraisal report is shared by Investigation Wing with both that the assessing officer and Joint CIT. In fact, CBDT guideline dt. 22.12.2006 (Copy enclosed) on the subject of the search and Seizure Assessments

ITO, Mumbai vs. Progress Partners Business Advisory LLP, Mumbai

Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus all the three grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3665/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kailas DabholkarFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 68

return of income. 8. We find that the Assessing Officer had taken note of the fact that as per information received from the Investigation Wing, M/s. Advance Computers and Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. was alleged to have raised fake/bogus invoices. We find that the Assessing Officer had made following observations

ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Double Plus Software P.Ltd, Nedw Delhi

ITA 4745/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble(As) & Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

also done a similar exercise in M/s. Seaview Agencies Private Limited. It noted that in the assessment year 2011-12 information received from the investigation wing of the was department regarding unaccounted income received by M/s. Seaview Agencies Private Limited and accordingly, addition was made treating the same as unexplained ... cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. Similarly, for the assessment year 2012-13 there was another information from the investigation wing regarding the unaccounted income and this amount was also added to the total income. The CIT(A) perused the assessment orders for those two years which showed

Zari Silk (India) Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 600/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 148BSection 263Section 69A

search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried M/s Zari Silk (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Arun Palawat, Jaipur. out by the Investigation Wing of the Income-tax Department on 23.11.2021 at the business/residential premises of the appellant company. The assessee filed its return of income under section ... related to Assessment Procedure (Search and Seizure) are reproduced hereunder :- 4(ii) “4. Appraisal report, panchanama and annexures : Along with the seized material the investigation wing forwards to the Assessing Officer an appraisal report, copies of warrants, and thepanchanama and its annexures. These should be handed over

Arun Palawat, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 599/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 148BSection 263Section 69A

search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried M/s Zari Silk (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Arun Palawat, Jaipur. out by the Investigation Wing of the Income-tax Department on 23.11.2021 at the business/residential premises of the appellant company. The assessee filed its return of income under section ... related to Assessment Procedure (Search and Seizure) are reproduced hereunder :- 4(ii) “4. Appraisal report, panchanama and annexures : Along with the seized material the investigation wing forwards to the Assessing Officer an appraisal report, copies of warrants, and thepanchanama and its annexures. These should be handed over

Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Jaipur vs. Kiran Infra Ispat Limited, Jaipur

ITA 535/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 68

taxmann.com 64 (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the addition was based on third party information gathered by Investigation wing then addition cannot be made unless such information is provided to the assessee and opportunity of cross examination is provided more so when assessee placed on record ... purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements

Ashok Nariyani, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1532/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh.Deepak Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

defect in the books of account maintained by the assessee, no inflated purchases or suppressed sales were found. In the instant case, even the Investigation Wing asked the assessee to furnish the details which were submitted, copy of which is placed at page no. 75 to 123 of the assessee ... compilation, on those details, no adverse comment was made by the Investigation Wing. It is also noticed that the assessee is having cash sales in all the years which is evident from page no. 4 of the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). For the year under consideration

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur vs. Nishit Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1386/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyaldcit, Central Circle-04, Jaipur Pan No. Aaspg 5173G ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Manish Tatiwala, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)

cash loans between various lenders and borrowers. Brokerage income earned there from was also found to be undisclosed. Based on such seized material, the Investigation Wing identified the present assessee as one of the alleged lenders who had advanced cash loans out of undisclosed income and earned interest thereon

Shyam Metalics Amd Energy Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1074/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Shyam Metalics & Engery Ltd…...………..............................……….……Appellant 83, Trinity Tower, 7Th Floor, Topsia, Kol-700046, [Pan: Aahcs5842A] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata…………………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Praveen Kishore, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 15, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

Section 250Section 68

though the assessee had furnished contract notes, bank statements and other documents in support of sale of shares of UIL but as per the Investigation Wing database, the share of UIL was penny stock which was being used by Shyam Metalics And Engery Ltd entry operators to provide bogus accommodation ... facts of the case and had rather disallowed the impugned sum in a mechanical fashion. He contended that neither the purported report of the Investigation Wing, statement of broker(s) or statement of entry operator(s) etc. was provided to the assessee nor was the assessee provided with a fair