IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5332/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17)

ITA No.5333/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18)

ITA No.5334/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19)

Deputy Commissioner of M/s Advant IT Park Private Ltd.

Income Tax, R-99F, Second Floor, Near Central Circle-1, Noida. Vs. Metro Station, Dilshad Garden, East Delhi-110095, New Delhi.

PAN-AAFCA0572P (Appellant) (Respondent)

C.O No.221/Del/2025 Arising out of ITA No.5332/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17)

C.O No.222/Del/2025 Arising out of ITA No.5333/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18)

C.O No.223/Del/2025 Arising out of ITA No.5334/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19)

M/s Advant IT Park Private Deputy Commissioner of Ltd. Income Tax, R-99F, Second Floor, Near Vs. Central Circle-1, Noida Metro Station, Dilshad Garden, East Delhi-110095, New Delhi.

PAN-AAFCA0572P (Appellant) (Respondent)

O R D E R

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:

These three appeals are filed by the Revenue against the common order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Noida (‘the CIT(A)’ in short) all dated 13.06.2025 arising out of the orders passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) for Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2018-19 respectively. The assessee has also filed cross objections.

2. The Appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are tabulated as under:

3. At the beginning of the proceedings, Ld. AR for the assessee submits that C.Os. are taken in support of the order of Ld. CIT(A), thus are not pressed.

Accordingly, C.Os. filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed as not pressed.

4. Before us, both the parties have stated that the facts involved in all these appeals are common, therefore, they are taken together and decided by a common order.

5. First we take up the appeal filed by Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17 in ITA No.5332/Del/2025

6. Brief facts of the case that assessee is a company incorporated with the object, inter alia, to develop, operate and rent out IT/Software Parks and provide comprehensive infrastructure and allied facilities thereto. The assessee was allotted a plot in Sector-142, Noida on leasehold basis for setting up Software/IT park. Accordingly, the assessee has constructed two towers and completion certificate was issued by competent authorities and the IT Park also fulfills all the conditions as par Govt. Order issued in this regard. Thereafter, the Ministry of Communication and Technology Department gave permission to the assessee for STP units under the Software Technology Park Scheme and the Units operating are duly registered under the said Scheme. The assessee has taken the entire receipts including lease rent, hire charges, and maintenance charges etc. as income under the head “Profits and Gains from Business or Profession” whereas the AO has treated the same as a rental income and taken the lease rent as “Income from house property” and hire charges and maintenance as “Income from other sources”, on the ground that the assessee was not notified as an Industrial Park/SEZ by the CBDT. The Ld. CIT(A) after detailed analysis of the facts and also considered the assessee’s objects allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding the entire income as business income.

7. Against the order of ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:

“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A)-

3. Noida has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,06,08,781/- and Rs. 6,49,86,381/ made by the Assessing Officer under the heads "Income from House Property" and "Income from Other Sources", respectively, by reclassifying the same as "Business Income", ignoring the nature of receipts and the fact that the assessee was primarily engaged in passive leasing activities.

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)

has err