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

MANTRAM COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company and filed its return of income on 28.08.2016 declaring income of Rs.1,46,020/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Subsequently, the case

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

condonation\nof delay, the delay of 49 days in filing the appeal is hereby\ncondoned.\n3. The assessee has raised the following grounds in the appeal:\n1. The Ld.CIT(A) haserred in law as well as on facts in\nconfirming the assessment framed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) of the\nIncome Tax Act 1961.\n2. The Ld.CIT

MOVEFAST AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-1(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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

delay of 23 days of filing the present appeal is condoned. 2. The assessee has raised the following concise grounds of appeal:- ““1. That the Id. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 85,00,000 us 68 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained share premium

NELUMBO PAINTS PVT. LTD.,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD 2(1), HARYANA

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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

delay of 19 days of filing the present appeal is condoned. 2. The assessee has raised the following Concise grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Id. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 93,00,000 us 68 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained share premium

MANHAR YARNS PRIVATE LIMITED,BALLABGARH vs. ITO WARD-1(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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

delay of 23 days of filing the present appeal is condoned. 2. The assessee has raised the following Concise grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Id. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 96300,000 us 68 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained share premium and share

MADHAVA HOME DECOR PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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

delay of 19 days of filing the present appeal is condoned. 2. The assessee has raised the following Concise grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Id. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 96,00,000 us 68 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained share premium

MOVEFAST TOUR & TRAVELS PVT. LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 96/Del/2021 (A.Y. 2016-17) Movefast Tour & Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito Plot No. 1066, Baba Nagar, Near Ward-1(5) Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad, C. R. Building, Faridabad Haryana Haryana Pan No. Aaicm2608P ( Respondent ) ( Appellant )

delay of 19 days of filing the present appeal is condoned. 2 Movefast Tour & Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 2. The assessee has raised the following Concise grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Id. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition

ABHI SOAPS PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act on protective basis and rejecting the valuation report furnished under Rule 11UA(2)(b) of Income Tax Rules, 1962 i.e., Discounted Cash Flow Method. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in enhancing the income of appellant by not issuing valid show cause notice

ZHILMIL ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Asstt. Year: 2015-16

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act wherein rejecting the valuation method taken by appellant assessee. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in enhancing the income of appellant assessee by not issuing valid show cause notice as mandated. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI, C.R. BUILDING vs. ADDVERB TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the order of CIT(A) is upheld, and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

delay in filing of appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. 3. The Revenue in appeal has assailed the order of CIT(A) on following two grounds:- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance

BALGOPAL COLD STORAGES PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Delay condoned. 3. The assessee has raised six grounds of appeal. The ld. AR has not pressed ground nos. 1, 4, 5 & 6. Balgopal Publication & Broom Publications Pvt. Ltd. 4. Ground No. 2 relates to addition of Rs.9,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Ground No. 3 relates to enhancement of income by Rs.70

BROOM PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Delay condoned. 3. The assessee has raised six grounds of appeal. The ld. AR has not pressed ground nos. 1, 4, 5 & 6. Balgopal Publication & Broom Publications Pvt. Ltd. 4. Ground No. 2 relates to addition of Rs.9,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Ground No. 3 relates to enhancement of income by Rs.70

PUNYAH BUILDING MATERIALS PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act wherein rejecting the valuation method taken by appellant assessee. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in enhancing the income of appellant assessee by not issuing valid show cause notice as mandated. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. CADDIE HOTELS PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. The applications shall stand disposed of. ITA 470/2024, ITA 471/2024, ITA 472/2024 & ITA 473/2024 1. The Principal Commissioner impugns the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1 “A. Whether in facts & circumstances of the case and applicable law, the Ld. ITAT and Ld. CIT(A) has erred by ignoring that the valuation done