NEW MANGALORE PORT ROAD COMPANY LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 New Mangalore Port Road Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited, Income Tax, Circle-16(1), D-21, Corporate Park, Vs. C. R. Building, I P Estate, Sector-21, Dwarka, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn9106E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

condone the delay in the interest of justice. 4. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee, engaged in business to develop, establish, construct and maintain a project relating to the construction, operation and maintenance of the New Mangalore Port Road connectivity project under the Build-Operate-Transfer (‘BOT’), filed its Income Tax Return

GULSHAN KUMAR,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD-1(3), GURGAON

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

1 to 4 are hereby dismissed. Therefore, required no separate adjudication. 8. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.” 4. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (‘AR’) prayed for condonation of delay of 379 days in filing this appeal. He submitted that the earlier Ld. Counsel looking after the tax matter of the assessee got critically ill, hence

EBNOY HOMES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 74(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava

condonation of delay and the appeal prior to amendments also did not make the imposition of late fees by Section 234 E to be ultra vires.” 12. The findings of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has also escaped the consideration by Hon’ble ITAT. She accordingly requested that the same may kindly be considered to avoid any miscarriage of justice

DHARAMVIR KHOSLA ,. vs. DCIT CC-5, NEW DELHI , .

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

delay is condoned in both the appeals and the same are admitted for hearing. 3. Further, it comes up that in AY: 2019-20 the assessment was completed u/s 153C of the Act at an assessed income of Rs.1,04,65,425/- as against income returned u/s 139(1) of the Act at Rs.89,25,914/-. The assessee had Page

DEVESH CINEMAS,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD - 2(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, I.T.A. No. 6173/DEL/2019 is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

251(1) of the Act by invoking Section 56(2) (viib) of the Act vide order dated 29/03/2019. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has preferred the above three appeals. Since similar questions raises for consideration, the above appeals are heard together. 5. There is a delay in filing the appeal, the assessee has filed an application for condonation

DAYALU IRON & STEEL PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, I.T.A. No. 6173/DEL/2019 is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

251(1) of the Act by invoking Section 56(2) (viib) of the Act vide order dated 29/03/2019. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has preferred the above three appeals. Since similar questions raises for consideration, the above appeals are heard together. 5. There is a delay in filing the appeal, the assessee has filed an application for condonation

DAYALU FASHIONS PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, I.T.A. No. 6173/DEL/2019 is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

251(1) of the Act by invoking Section 56(2) (viib) of the Act vide order dated 29/03/2019. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has preferred the above three appeals. Since similar questions raises for consideration, the above appeals are heard together. 5. There is a delay in filing the appeal, the assessee has filed an application for condonation

AKASH EDUCATION SOCIETY ,GREATER NOIDA vs. CIT-A-I, U.P

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per ground number three raised before us

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Akash Education Society, Vs Cit(A)-I, R.V. Northland Institute, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. V & Po:- Chittehra, Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201301. Pan-Aabta3590J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Hifzul Hasnain, Ar Respondent By Shri Mithalesh Kumar Pandey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2022

delay in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. 7. Ld. Sr. DR, in all fairness, agreed to the submissions of the Ld.AR of the assessee that similar issue in the assessee’s own appeals in ITA Nos. 6391 & 6392/Del/2017 for the Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 have been decided by the ITAT, “F” Bench, Delhi vide order

VINOD KUMAR SHARMA ,DELHI vs. AO WARD 71(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

251, Street No.2, Delhi. Chhelera Village Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, 201303 PAN: AYNPS1048K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Sh. Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR Department represented by Date of hearing 17.05.2023 Date of pronouncement 30 .05.2023 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned

JAYPEE INFRA VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 13(1) , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

1 and 2 are in respect of dismissal of appeal in limine by the Ld. CIT(A) on the reasoning that the said appeal was filed after specified time and there was no request to condone the said delay. However, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) drew our attention to the fact that the assessee had filed a detailed reply [page

PEOPLE CARE HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 People Care Hospitals Private Vs Ito Limited, Plot No.1066, Baba Ward- 2 (1) Nagar, Near Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad Old Faridabad, Haryana 121002 Pan No.Aagcp8745G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Geranium Barkers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito 103/B, Near Shyamji Mandir Ward-1 (3) Malerna Road, Adarsh Nagar, Faridabad Ballabgarh Haryana -122004 Pan No.Aafcg3396P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Riven Health Club Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ff-9, Vishnu Place Near Ward- 2 (2) Neelam Flyover Sector-20B Faridabad Faridabad Haryana121001 Pan No. Aagcr1343A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Advocate Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Sh. Dishant Sethi, Advocate

delay is condoned. The appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- CONCISE GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 95,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 3 1961 on account

RIVEN HEALTH CLUB PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-2(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 People Care Hospitals Private Vs Ito Limited, Plot No.1066, Baba Ward- 2 (1) Nagar, Near Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad Old Faridabad, Haryana 121002 Pan No.Aagcp8745G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Geranium Barkers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito 103/B, Near Shyamji Mandir Ward-1 (3) Malerna Road, Adarsh Nagar, Faridabad Ballabgarh Haryana -122004 Pan No.Aafcg3396P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Riven Health Club Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ff-9, Vishnu Place Near Ward- 2 (2) Neelam Flyover Sector-20B Faridabad Faridabad Haryana121001 Pan No. Aagcr1343A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Advocate Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Sh. Dishant Sethi, Advocate

delay is condoned. The appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- CONCISE GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 95,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 3 1961 on account

GERANIUM BAKERS PRIVATE LMITED,BALLABHGARH vs. ITO WARD-1(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 People Care Hospitals Private Vs Ito Limited, Plot No.1066, Baba Ward- 2 (1) Nagar, Near Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad Old Faridabad, Haryana 121002 Pan No.Aagcp8745G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Geranium Barkers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito 103/B, Near Shyamji Mandir Ward-1 (3) Malerna Road, Adarsh Nagar, Faridabad Ballabgarh Haryana -122004 Pan No.Aafcg3396P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Riven Health Club Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ff-9, Vishnu Place Near Ward- 2 (2) Neelam Flyover Sector-20B Faridabad Faridabad Haryana121001 Pan No. Aagcr1343A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Advocate Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Sh. Dishant Sethi, Advocate

delay is condoned. The appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- CONCISE GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 95,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 3 1961 on account

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

condonation of delay in filing of appeal may be granted since it took some time to know the current status of the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in this case. 24. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground/(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

condonation of delay in filing of appeal may be granted since it took some time to know the current status of the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in this case. 24. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground/(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

condonation of delay in filing of appeal may be granted since it took some time to know the current status of the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in this case. 24. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground/(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

condonation of delay in filing of appeal may be granted since it took some time to know the current status of the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in this case. 24. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground/(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

condonation of delay in filing of appeal may be granted since it took some time to know the current status of the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in this case. 24. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground/(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing