SHANTA BLANKETS PVT. LTD.,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-2(3) , FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

House International Pvt. Ltd. In reported [2018] 98 taxmann.com 47.” 7. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessees have not produced the original confirmation, confirmations have not been produced in some of the cases and in some of the cases there is no documentary evidence such as confirmation, ITR, Balance sheet, Bank Account etc. The assessees have

PINGASH MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,BALLABHGARH vs. ITO WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

House International Pvt. Ltd. In reported [2018] 98 taxmann.com 47.” 7. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessees have not produced the original confirmation, confirmations have not been produced in some of the cases and in some of the cases there is no documentary evidence such as confirmation, ITR, Balance sheet, Bank Account etc. The assessees have

VIDHI CINEMAS PVT.LTD.,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-2(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

House International Pvt. Ltd. In reported [2018] 98 taxmann.com 47.” 7. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessees have not produced the original confirmation, confirmations have not been produced in some of the cases and in some of the cases there is no documentary evidence such as confirmation, ITR, Balance sheet, Bank Account etc. The assessees have

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

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

House International Pvt. Ltd. In reported [2018] 98 taxmann.com 47.” 7. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessees have not produced the original confirmation, confirmations have not been produced in some of the cases and in some of the cases there is no documentary evidence such as confirmation, ITR, Balance sheet, Bank Account etc. The assessees have

SPARSH BEAUTY CARE PVT. LTD.,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-2(4), HARYANA

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Punyah Building Vs Ito Materials Pvt. Ltd. Ward-2 (1) House No.1002, Near Talab Faridabad Shiv Colony, Old Faridabad Haryana Ballahgarh Haryana 122002 Pan No.Aagcp8742B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sparsh Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Plot No.1066, Near Janta Barat Ward-2 (4) Ghar Baba Nagar, Faridabad Faridabad Haryana 121002 Haryana Pan No.Aascs2575D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Speedy Courier Services Pvt. Vs Ito Ltd. Ward- 2 (4) Plot No.1022, Near Talab Shiv Faridabad Colony, Faridabad Haryana Pan No.Aascs2579R (Appellant) (Respondent)

House International Pvt. Ltd. In reported [2018] 98 taxmann.com 47.” 6. The Ld DR has submitted that assessees have not produced the requisite original documents to satisfied the ingredients of section 68 of the Act. He has not filed the confirmation of ITR, balance sheet, Bank account etc in some cases. The assessees have failed to discharge their burden

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

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Punyah Building Vs Ito Materials Pvt. Ltd. Ward-2 (1) House No.1002, Near Talab Faridabad Shiv Colony, Old Faridabad Haryana Ballahgarh Haryana 122002 Pan No.Aagcp8742B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sparsh Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Plot No.1066, Near Janta Barat Ward-2 (4) Ghar Baba Nagar, Faridabad Faridabad Haryana 121002 Haryana Pan No.Aascs2575D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Speedy Courier Services Pvt. Vs Ito Ltd. Ward- 2 (4) Plot No.1022, Near Talab Shiv Faridabad Colony, Faridabad Haryana Pan No.Aascs2579R (Appellant) (Respondent)

House International Pvt. Ltd. In reported [2018] 98 taxmann.com 47.” 6. The Ld DR has submitted that assessees have not produced the requisite original documents to satisfied the ingredients of section 68 of the Act. He has not filed the confirmation of ITR, balance sheet, Bank account etc in some cases. The assessees have failed to discharge their burden

SPEEDY COURIER SERVICES PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD - 2(4), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Punyah Building Vs Ito Materials Pvt. Ltd. Ward-2 (1) House No.1002, Near Talab Faridabad Shiv Colony, Old Faridabad Haryana Ballahgarh Haryana 122002 Pan No.Aagcp8742B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sparsh Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Plot No.1066, Near Janta Barat Ward-2 (4) Ghar Baba Nagar, Faridabad Faridabad Haryana 121002 Haryana Pan No.Aascs2575D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Speedy Courier Services Pvt. Vs Ito Ltd. Ward- 2 (4) Plot No.1022, Near Talab Shiv Faridabad Colony, Faridabad Haryana Pan No.Aascs2579R (Appellant) (Respondent)

House International Pvt. Ltd. In reported [2018] 98 taxmann.com 47.” 6. The Ld DR has submitted that assessees have not produced the requisite original documents to satisfied the ingredients of section 68 of the Act. He has not filed the confirmation of ITR, balance sheet, Bank account etc in some cases. The assessees have failed to discharge their burden

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

House International Pvt. Ltd. In reported [2018] 98 taxmann.com 47.” 8. The Ld.DR has submitted that assessees have not produced the requisite documents to satisfied the ingredients of section 68 of the Act. He has not filed the confirmation of ITR, balance sheet, Bank account etc in some cases. The assessees have failed to discharge their burden

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

House International Pvt. Ltd. In reported [2018] 98 taxmann.com 47.” 8. The Ld.DR has submitted that assessees have not produced the requisite documents to satisfied the ingredients of section 68 of the Act. He has not filed the confirmation of ITR, balance sheet, Bank account etc in some cases. The assessees have failed to discharge their burden

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

House International Pvt. Ltd. In reported [2018] 98 taxmann.com 47.” 8. The Ld.DR has submitted that assessees have not produced the requisite documents to satisfied the ingredients of section 68 of the Act. He has not filed the confirmation of ITR, balance sheet, Bank account etc in some cases. The assessees have failed to discharge their burden

TECHPARK HOTELS PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ADDI. CIT SPECIAL RANGE-9, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumartechpark Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Addl. Cit, Ground Floor, Central Wing, Special Range-9, Thapar House 124, Janpath, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aabce5833H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Shri Tavish Verma, Adv. Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. Dr Department By Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Order Dated 11.09.2019 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2017 Of The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Declaring Loss Of Rs.23,06,28,106/- On 30.11.2015. Notice U/S 143(2) Dated 22.09.2016 Was Issued. Notices U/S 142(1) Were Issued. Sh. Nikhil Agarwal & Shri Nirmal Malpani, Ca Appeared & Filed Details. On Completion Of Proceedings, Ld. Ao Vide Order Dated Techpark Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit

House 124, Janpath, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110001. PAN-AABCE5833H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. and Shri Tavish Verma, Adv. Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. DR Department by Date of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.03.2026 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: The appeal filed by the Assessee is against order dated

SHIV KUMAR JATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

viib) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xvii) any sum of money referred to in clause (ix) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xviia) any sum of money or value of property referred to in clause (x) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xviib) any compensation or other payment referred to in clause (xi) of sub-section

SHIV KUMAR JATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

viib) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xvii) any sum of money referred to in clause (ix) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xviia) any sum of money or value of property referred to in clause (x) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xviib) any compensation or other payment referred to in clause (xi) of sub-section

KHEER BHAWANI TRADING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 14(3), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 6968/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16

House-21, New Delhi New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri S. Jain, CA Revenue by Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 07.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 15.09.2022 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The appeal has been filed by the Assessee against order dated 23.08.2018 in appeal no. Del/CIT(A)-5/0155/2017-18 passed u/s 250 of the Income

VAAAN INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,HARYANA vs. PR,CIT DELHI-7, DELHI

Bench: PCIT, Delhi-9, however the order passed by Hon'ble PCIT, Delhi-7 on 30.03.2021.

House (2010) 194 Taxmann 324 (Delhi) 5. The pre-requisite of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act not fulfilled 5.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the HON'BLE PCIT erred in applying the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act without providing an opportunity to the Appellant to substantiate its claim

REFIRAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURGAON

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 8306/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Refiral Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 1789, Third Floor, Sector- Ward-3(5), 46, Gurgaon-122002 Gurgaon-1220088 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcr0604D Assessee By: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.01.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A), Kolkata’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1081746005(1) Dated 14.10.2025, In Proceedings U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

House No. 1789, Third Floor, Sector- Ward-3(5), 46, Gurgaon-122002 Gurgaon-1220088 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAHCR0604D Assessee by: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 20.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 20.01.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 arises against the Addl./JCIT(A), Kolkata’s DIN & order

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(2), NEW DELHI vs. CAPARO POWER LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

House, 21, K.G. Marg, New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCB8619C Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, CA Revenue by : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 24.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 24.08.2021 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A)-2, New Delhi

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Housing Board Gurgaon 64,39,759 3 HSIDC 77,81,60,166 4 HUDA 1,46,55,41,389 5 PWD 13,62,99,361 6 Rangoli Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. 27,00,000 Total 2,71,11,88,127 Reconciliation of Turnover of books with service tax return S. No. Particulars Amount A Turnover from Construction Business 2