“investigation wing”

Mahabir Parshad Goel, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 47(1), New

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmanmahabir Parshad Goel, Vs. Ito, Ward 47 (1), 4080-81, First Floor, Naya Bazar, New Delhi. Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 110 006. (Pan : Abhpg7332H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vasu Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 Date Of Order : 21.05.2025 O R D E R 1. The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 30.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Income Of Rs.4,85,670/- For Ay 2012-13 On 27.09.2012. Subsequently, Ao Received Information From Ddit (Inv.), Unit 6 (2) That Assessee Has Taken Accommodation Entry From Ashok Kumar Gupta, Sandeep Gupta & Anuj Gupta & They Have Accepted The Same On Oath In Statement

orders of the authorities below. 7. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. I observed that based on the information received from Investigation Wing, the purchases declared by the assessee were found to be bogus purchases. 4 At the same time, I observed that assessee has already declared

Vinod Kohli, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 35(1), New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

wrongly determined the value of such property at Rs.7,20,000/- (page 2 of the assessment order). Whereas in the reasons recorded by the Investigation Wing, the annual lettable is stated to be of Rs.1,30,000/-. No logical/reasonable basis for escalating the value of such property has been mentioned

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Shyam Sunder Jindal, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

retracted the said admission of additional income made under section 132(4) of the I.T. Act by way of any affidavit filed before the Investigation Wing or the Assessing Officer. There is no mention of any such affidavit in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) either ... with any material, much less incriminating material found during the course of search. Further, even after the completion of search, relentless pressure by the investigating wing continued and to ACIT vs. Shyam Sunder Jindal avoid unnecessary harassment, the assessee had no option but to continue with the same position

Sushen Mohan Gupta, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 15, Delhi

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

returned income of the appellant under Section 68 of the Act based on the contents of the so-called pen-drive received by the Investigation Wing from the Enforcement Directorate. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law by falling to appreciate that the case of the appellant ... unless and until incriminating evidence are found during the course of search and also that armed with a pendrive, the Investigation Wing went against the taxpayer's charter and Form 45 itself which mandates that nothing can be carried by the Investigation Wing from their office in respect of documents

Sushen Mohan Gupta, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 15, Delhi

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

returned income of the appellant under section 68 of the Act based on the contents of the so-called pen-drive received by the Investigation Wing from the Enforcement Directorate. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law by falling to appreciate that the case of the appellant ... unless and until incriminating evidence are found during the course of search and also that armed with a pendrive, the Investigation Wing went against the taxpayer's charter and Form 45 itself which mandates that nothing can be carried by the Investigation Wing from their office in respect of documents

Sushen Mohan Gupta, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 15, Delhi

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

returned income of the appellant under section 68 of the Act based on the contents of the so-called pen-drive received by the Investigation Wing from the Enforcement Directorate. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law by failing to appreciate that the case of the appellant ... unless and until incriminating evidence are found during the course of search and also that armed with a pendrive, the Investigation Wing went against the taxpayer's charter and Form 45 itself which mandates that nothing can be carried by the Investigation Wing from their office in respect of documents

Sushen Mohan Gupta, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 15, Delhi

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

returned income of the appellant under section 68 of the Act based on the contents of the so-called pen-drive received by the Investigation Wing from the Enforcement Directorate. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law by falling to appreciate that the case of the appellant ... unless and until incriminating evidence are found during the course of search and also that armed with a pendrive, the Investigation Wing went against the taxpayer's charter and Form 45 itself which mandates that nothing can be carried by the Investigation Wing from their office in respect of documents