CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.

216 CTR 195Supreme Court of India2008#57 most cited

What is CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. authority for?

If an assessee company receives share application money from alleged bogus shareholders and provides their details to the Assessing Officer, no addition can be made under Section 68 in the company's hands; the Department must proceed against the shareholders by reopening their individual assessments.

854

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. · Section 68 · share application money · bogus shareholders · creditworthiness of creditor · genuineness of transaction · addition u/s 68 · reopening assessments of shareholders · 216 CTR 195 · Supreme Court 2008

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 131Section 148Section 143(2)Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditorsource of sourceshare capital and share premiumshare application moneypaper companyretracted statementaddition u/s 68addition under section 68genuineness of the transactionentry operatoraccommodation entrysection 133(6)

Judgments citing CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.

DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai vs. Ritesh Shares & Securities P Ltd, Chennai

The appeals of the revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 27/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 143(3)

…"AO himself has concluded that these are Bogus Companies. Admitting for a while as observed by AO that these are bogus companies, the right thing AO should have done was to proceed against the said bogus companies, as held in the case of Lovely Exports P Ltd-216 ITR 195 (SC) and should not have considered the said sum u/s.68." 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of loss on sale of Investments amounting to Rs.41,69,240/- without discussing the merits of the issue, though the assessing officer has clearly stated that the assessee has not discharged his burden by submitting documentary evidence…

DCIT, Central Cir-2(3), Chennai vs. Rkkr Holdings P Ltd, Chennai

The appeals of the revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 160/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 143(3)

…"AO himself has concluded that these are Bogus Companies. Admitting for a while as observed by AO that these are bogus companies, the right thing AO should have done was to proceed against the said bogus companies, as held in the case of Lovely Exports P Ltd-216 ITR 195 (SC) and should not have considered the said sum u/s.68." 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of loss on sale of Investments amounting to Rs.41,69,240/- without discussing the merits of the issue, though the assessing officer has clearly stated that the assessee has not discharged his burden by submitting documentary evidence…

DCIT, Central Cir-2(3), Chennai vs. Rkkr Holdings P Ltd, Chennai

The appeals of the revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 159/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 143(3)

…"AO himself has concluded that these are Bogus Companies. Admitting for a while as observed by AO that these are bogus companies, the right thing AO should have done was to proceed against the said bogus companies, as held in the case of Lovely Exports P Ltd-216 ITR 195 (SC) and should not have considered the said sum u/s.68." 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of loss on sale of Investments amounting to Rs.41,69,240/- without discussing the merits of the issue, though the assessing officer has clearly stated that the assessee has not discharged his burden by submitting documentary evidence…

DCIT, Central Cir-2(3), Chennai vs. Rkkr Holdings P Ltd, Chennai

The appeals of the revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 158/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 143(3)

…"AO himself has concluded that these are Bogus Companies. Admitting for a while as observed by AO that these are bogus companies, the right thing AO should have done was to proceed against the said bogus companies, as held in the case of Lovely Exports P Ltd-216 ITR 195 (SC) and should not have considered the said sum u/s.68." 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of loss on sale of Investments amounting to Rs.41,69,240/- without discussing the merits of the issue, though the assessing officer has clearly stated that the assessee has not discharged his burden by submitting documentary evidence…

DCIT, Central Cir-2(3), Chennai vs. Rkkr Holdings P Ltd, Chennai

The appeals of the revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 157/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 143(3)

…"AO himself has concluded that these are Bogus Companies. Admitting for a while as observed by AO that these are bogus companies, the right thing AO should have done was to proceed against the said bogus companies, as held in the case of Lovely Exports P Ltd-216 ITR 195 (SC) and should not have considered the said sum u/s.68." 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of loss on sale of Investments amounting to Rs.41,69,240/- without discussing the merits of the issue, though the assessing officer has clearly stated that the assessee has not discharged his burden by submitting documentary evidence…

ACIT Central Circle 2 (3), Chennai vs. M/S Sbq Steels Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 579/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 22(4)Section 33(1)Section 54

…ection 179 of the Act would not be applicable to the directors of the M/s. SBQ Steels Limited.” 3. When these facts were put to the ld.CIT-DR, he only requested that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., 216 ITR 195, the addition in the hands of investing company can be considered as unexplained investment. The ld.CIT-DR drew our attention to Revenue’s paper-book, volume- 1, page Nos.1 to 35, wherein the AO’s report vide F.No.ACIT/CC- 2(3)/2021-22 dt. 19.03.2022 enclosed, can be considered. Apart from that, on the issue of dissolving of the company by NLCT,…

ACIT Central Circle 2 (3), Chennai vs. M/S Sbq Steels Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 578/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 22(4)Section 33(1)Section 54

…ection 179 of the Act would not be applicable to the directors of the M/s. SBQ Steels Limited.” 3. When these facts were put to the ld.CIT-DR, he only requested that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., 216 ITR 195, the addition in the hands of investing company can be considered as unexplained investment. The ld.CIT-DR drew our attention to Revenue’s paper-book, volume- 1, page Nos.1 to 35, wherein the AO’s report vide F.No.ACIT/CC- 2(3)/2021-22 dt. 19.03.2022 enclosed, can be considered. Apart from that, on the issue of dissolving of the company by NLCT,…

ACIT, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai vs. Sbq Steels Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 303/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 22(4)Section 33(1)Section 54

…ection 179 of the Act would not be applicable to the directors of the M/s. SBQ Steels Limited.” 3. When these facts were put to the ld.CIT-DR, he only requested that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., 216 ITR 195, the addition in the hands of investing company can be considered as unexplained investment. The ld.CIT-DR drew our attention to Revenue’s paper-book, volume- 1, page Nos.1 to 35, wherein the AO’s report vide F.No.ACIT/CC- 2(3)/2021-22 dt. 19.03.2022 enclosed, can be considered. Apart from that, on the issue of dissolving of the company by NLCT,…

ACIT, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai vs. Sbq Steels Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 302/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 22(4)Section 33(1)Section 54

…ection 179 of the Act would not be applicable to the directors of the M/s. SBQ Steels Limited.” 3. When these facts were put to the ld.CIT-DR, he only requested that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., 216 ITR 195, the addition in the hands of investing company can be considered as unexplained investment. The ld.CIT-DR drew our attention to Revenue’s paper-book, volume- 1, page Nos.1 to 35, wherein the AO’s report vide F.No.ACIT/CC- 2(3)/2021-22 dt. 19.03.2022 enclosed, can be considered. Apart from that, on the issue of dissolving of the company by NLCT,…

ACIT, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai vs. Sbq Steels Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 301/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 22(4)Section 33(1)Section 54

…ection 179 of the Act would not be applicable to the directors of the M/s. SBQ Steels Limited.” 3. When these facts were put to the ld.CIT-DR, he only requested that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., 216 ITR 195, the addition in the hands of investing company can be considered as unexplained investment. The ld.CIT-DR drew our attention to Revenue’s paper-book, volume- 1, page Nos.1 to 35, wherein the AO’s report vide F.No.ACIT/CC- 2(3)/2021-22 dt. 19.03.2022 enclosed, can be considered. Apart from that, on the issue of dissolving of the company by NLCT,…

ACIT, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai vs. Sbq Steels Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 300/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 22(4)Section 33(1)Section 54

…ection 179 of the Act would not be applicable to the directors of the M/s. SBQ Steels Limited.” 3. When these facts were put to the ld.CIT-DR, he only requested that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., 216 ITR 195, the addition in the hands of investing company can be considered as unexplained investment. The ld.CIT-DR drew our attention to Revenue’s paper-book, volume- 1, page Nos.1 to 35, wherein the AO’s report vide F.No.ACIT/CC- 2(3)/2021-22 dt. 19.03.2022 enclosed, can be considered. Apart from that, on the issue of dissolving of the company by NLCT,…

DCIT, Circle-3(1) Kolkata, Kolkata vs. M/S. Shree Parasnath Re-Rolling Mills Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2470/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar& Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 142(1)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘बी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 2470/Kol/2019 Assessment Year : 2012-13 DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata Vs. M/s Shree Parasnath Re-Rolling Mills Ltd. (PAN:AAGCS 2108 E) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / ( !यथ") Date of Hearing / सुनवाई 13.09.2022 क$ "त&थ Date of Pronouncement/ 17.11.2022 आदेश उ)घोषणा क$ "त&थ For the Appellant/ Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate "नधा"/रती क$ ओर से For the Respon…

DCIT Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S.Gandhar Yarn Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 907/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Mane
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 68

…and assessing them to tax in accordance with law and it did not entitle revenue to add same to assessee's income as unexplained cash credit." 12.27 The Appellant company has also relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd., 216 CTR 195, wherein it was held as under:- "The assessee had received certain amounts from various persons as share application money. No addition on account unexplained cash credits could be made to its income in the absence of any evidence to suggest that the subscribers were benamidars or any part of the share capital represented the assessee's own incom…

ITO, Ward-12(1), Kolkata vs. Trinetra Merchants(P) Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 570/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.570/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata .......….…..…....................................................….. Appellant Vs. Trinetra Merchants (P) Ltd...............................................................…… …. Respondent 14A, Clive Row, 1St Floor, Dalhousie, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aabct7086M] Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 12, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 03, 2022 आदेश / Order मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य "वारा / Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 13.07.2020 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 10.03.2015. 2. Registry Has Informed That The Appeal Is Time Barred By 343 Days. Condonation Application Has Been Filed By The Revenue. Perusal Of The Same Shows That The Delay Was On Account Of Covid-19 Restrictions. We, Therefore, In View Of The Judgment Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Vide Miscellaneous Application No. 21 Of 2022 Find That The Limitation Period In Filing Appeal Between 15.03.2020 Till

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…ced on following decisions: i) CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P) Ltd. 80 taxmann.com 272 (Bombay) ii) Green Infra Ltd. vs. ITI, Ward1(1) 159 TTJ 728 iii) PCIT vs. Chain House International (P) Ltd. 98 taxmann.com 47; iv) CIT vs. Lovely Exports Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC); v) CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Limited [ITA No.972 of 2009]; I.T.A No.570/Kol/2021 Assessment year: 2012-13 Trinetra Merchants (P) Ltd. vi) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 127 Taxman 523; vii) CIT vs. Orissa Coprn (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 8. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the d…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Raipur vs. Mesers Vandana Ispat Limited, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 183/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR
Section 68

…n money which is an essential pre-requisite for making addition in such cases. I am convinced that the case of the appellant is squarely covered by the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. reported in 216 CTR 195 and the jurisdictional High Court viz. the Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of the ACIT vs. Venkateshwar Ispat (P) Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 393 for the reason that the facts in such cases are entirely same, particularly, when no differentiation could be effectively demonstrated and brought on to the record by the A.O. The submissions of the AO…

Khushi Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Dalhousie vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), Kolkata, Aaykar Bhawan

ITA 195/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…e of CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. 333 ITR 110, judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd. vs. ACIT (2006) 155 Taxman 289 and judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195(SC). The ld. counsel for the I.T.A No.195/Kol/2022 Assessment year: 2012-13 Khushi Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd assessee further referred to the following documents filed with regard to the three share applicants referred hereinabove: (A) Everfast Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (i) Copy of share application (ii) Copy of relevant bank statement (iii) Copy of…

M/S. Bhavi Leasing & Finance Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Vadodara

ITA 994/AHD/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2006-07 M/S. Bhavi Leasing & Finance Ltd. Ito, Ward-1(1) 36/3, Sindhi Commercial Market Vs Baroda. Kalupur Ahmedabad 380 001. Pan : Aaacb 9407 F

For Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…ough Bhavi Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. in two companies belonging to his group. The total amount so introduced was Rs.30 lakhs. Now, under similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its decision in the case of Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) has held that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus share holders whose names are given to the AO, then the department is free to proceed for reopening of individual assessment of such bogus share holders in accordance with law. Thus, the reopening made in the current assessment is correct as p…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. Devi Iron & Power Limited, Raipur

ITA 266/BIL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 266/Rpr/2014 Co No.29/Rpr/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle, Raipur (C.G.) ......अपीलाथ" / Appellant . बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

…f bringing the same to a logical end had summarily rejected the assessee’s claim and dubbed the entire amount as an unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. Relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC) and also the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of ACIT Vs. Venkateshwar Ispat (P) Ltd, 319 ITR 393, the CIT(Appeals) concluded that now when the investment made by the aforesaid share applicant, viz. M/s. Calidora Traders Pvt. Ltd. was duly reflected in its audited financial statements, therefore, no adverse infe…

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2006/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी.दुगा" राव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी.मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 to 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2012-13) M/s. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2nd floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. PAN: AAFFB 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. S.Sridha…

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2005/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी.दुगा" राव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी.मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 to 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2012-13) M/s. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2nd floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. PAN: AAFFB 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. S.Sridha…