Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
$~50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 556/2023
PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME DELHI -1 ..... Appellant Through: Mr Sanjeev Menon, Standing Counsel.
versus
M/S. ADVANCE INDIA PROJECTS PVT LTD ..... Respondent
Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
O R D E R %
26.09.2023
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM Appl.49973/2023 [Application moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay of 217 days in re-filing the appeal] 1. This is an application moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. 2. According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 217 days. 3. Issue notice to the non-applicant/respondent/revenue via all permissible modes including email. 4. List the application on 27.02.2024. ITA 556/2023 5. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 6. The appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 26.05.2022
ITA 556/2023
1/3 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 13:32:56
passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”]. 7. Broadly, there are two issues which arose for consideration before the Tribunal. 8. The first issue which arose before the Tribunal concerns the treatment of amount received by the respondent/assessee towards External Development Charges [“EDC”]/Internal Development Charges [“IDC”] and cess while selling the subject land to a company going by the name Pavi Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. [“Pavi”]. 8.1 The record shows that the respondent/assessee had purchased the land, in first instance, from Rapid Infracon Pvt. Ltd. [“Rapid”]. The total consideration paid by the respondent/assessee to Rapid was Rs.56,40,25,768/-, out of which Rs.8,56,25,768/- was paid towards EDC/IDC and cess. 8.2. Insofar as the sale transaction with Pavi is concerned, the respondent/assessee claimed that it had received Rs.65 crores towards the sale value of land and the balance Rs.8,56,25,768/- towards EDC/IDC and cess. 9. The second issue which arose for consideration before the Tribunal concerns the ad hoc disallowance made with regard to the purported use of the subject car for personal purposes by the Director of the respondent company. 9.1 The Assessing Officer (AO) pegged the said disallowance to Rs 18,09,643/- which was scaled down by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, “CIT(A)”] to Rs.9,02,822/-. This disallowance was ITA 556/2023
2/3
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 13:32:56
deleted by the Tribunal. 9.2. The appellant/revenue has appealed the deletion of the disallowance by the Tribunal which was quantified by the CIT (A) at Rs.9,02,822/-. 10. Insofar as the first issue is concerned, Mr Sanjeev Menon, learned standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, says he would like to place before the Court the record that was made available to the statutory authorities. 10.1 Leave in that behalf is granted. 11. List the matter on 27.02.2024.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J SEPTEMBER 26, 2023/pmc
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
ITA 556/2023
3/3 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 13:32:56