Dismissed¶¶29

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -4 v. Nidra Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC21 Apr 2026ITA/203/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ITA 203/2026; Delhi High Court; Section 260A Income Tax Act 1961 appeal dismissed; Section 68 addition; share purchase by holding company; Nidra Hospitality Pvt Ltd; Nidra Holdings Pte Ltd Singapore; consideration Rs.6,47,79,691/-; premium Rs.790 per share; paper transaction; genuine investment; bank channels; sufficient funds; armchair of the assessee; question of fact and appreciation of evidence; Tribunal order 18.12.2024; CIT(A) order 17.04.2023; condonation of 241 days delay in re-filing.

What did the court decide?

The issue raised in the appeal is purely a question of fact and appreciation of evidence. ¶¶28

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -4 Vs Nidra Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ITA 203/2026

¶4

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr.Shivendra Singh, JSC, Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSC and Mr. Surya Jindal, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

NIDRA HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Jain, Mr. Shubham Gupta & Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advs.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 21.04.2026

¶11

CM APPL. 16589/2026

¶12

This is an application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of 241 days9 delay in re-filing the appeal.

¶13

For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed and the delay of 241 days in re-filing is condoned.

¶14

The application is disposed of.

¶15

ITA 203/2026

¶16

By way of the present appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as 8the Act of 19619 ), the appellantPrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 has challenged the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 8E9, New

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 23/04/2026 at 12:39:47

¶19

Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as 8the Tribunal9 ) whereby the Tribunal has affirmed the order dated 17.04.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( hereinafter referred to as 8CIT (A)9 ).

¶20

The facts appertain are that a company-Nidra Holdings Pte Ltd., Singapore had purchased shares of the respondent-assessee for a consideration of Rs.6,47,79,691/- at a premium of Rs.790 per share. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made an addition of this amount under Section 68 of the Act of 1961, by observing that the said transaction is not a genuine investment but is only a paper transaction.

¶21

The CIT(A) allowed assessee9s appeal by way of order dated 17.04.2023, after examining the transaction found the transaction to have been carried out through bank channels. He further recorded a finding that the investing company in Singapore had sufficient funds and the Assessing Officer cannot sit in the armchair of the assessee to examine the business need of the assessee so also the investor9s wisdom.

¶22

The Tribunal affirmed the findings of the CIT (A) vide the impugned order dated 18.12.2024, against which the Income Tax Department has approached this Court in appellate jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Act of 1961.

¶23

Learned senior standing counsel for the appellant-Department argued that the facts on record clearly show that the Singapore company namely Nidra Holdings Pte Ltd. did not have any business and that it had taken interest-free loans from other companies.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that M/s Nidra Holdings Pte Ltd., Singapore is a holding company of the

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 23/04/2026 at 12:39:47

¶27

respondent-assessee and the shares were subscribed/purchased by the said company as per its business wisdom, which cannot be questioned by the Assessing Officer as per the provisions existing at the relevant time.

¶28

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the issue before us is purely a question of fact and appreciation of evidence. We concur with the view taken by the Tribunal and the CIT (A) that the Assessing Officer cannot sit in the armchair of the assessee. Given that the investor is holding company of the respondent-assessee, there is no error in the finding recorded by the Appellate Authorities.

¶29

In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed.

¶30

DINESH MEHTA, J

¶31

VINOD KUMAR, J

¶32

APRIL 21, 2026 kk

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

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 23/04/2026 at 12:39:47

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -4 v. Nidra Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -4 v. Nidra Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Aggarwal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

Indian Federation of Pharma Generics Vs Union of India & Ors.

Puneet Kanodia Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre New Delhi & Anr.

Wwl India Private Limited Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre Income Tax Department, Govt of India & Anr.

Hari Bhoomi Communications Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 10 1 & Ors.

Microsoft Regional Sales Pte. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.