DICT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. GSNR RICE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

section 68 of the Act, to treat entries in diary and notebook and deleted entries from computer CPU as unexplained cash credit, one has to first understand provisions of section 68 of the Act. The provisions of section 68 deals with the cases where any sum is found credited in books of accounts of the assessee maintained

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. SHRI KANAKKILIANALLUR NARAYANA REDDIYAR MANIVANNAN,, TIRUPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

section 68 of the Act, to treat entries in diary and notebook and deleted entries from computer CPU as unexplained cash credit, one has to first understand provisions of section 68 of the Act. The provisions of section 68 deals with the cases where any sum is found credited in books of accounts of the assessee maintained

DICT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. GSNR RICE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

section 68 of the Act, to treat entries in diary and notebook and deleted entries from computer CPU as unexplained cash credit, one has to first understand provisions of section 68 of the Act. The provisions of section 68 deals with the cases where any sum is found credited in books of accounts of the assessee maintained

DICT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. GSNR RICE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

section 68 of the Act, to treat entries in diary and notebook and deleted entries from computer CPU as unexplained cash credit, one has to first understand provisions of section 68 of the Act. The provisions of section 68 deals with the cases where any sum is found credited in books of accounts of the assessee maintained

DICT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. GSNR RICE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

section 68 of the Act, to treat entries in diary and notebook and deleted entries from computer CPU as unexplained cash credit, one has to first understand provisions of section 68 of the Act. The provisions of section 68 deals with the cases where any sum is found credited in books of accounts of the assessee maintained

M/S AADHI ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 308/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Aadhi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, No.1-130, Perambur Barracks V. Central Circle-3(1), Road, Pattalam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 112. Pan: Aanca 0382P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Shri S. Neelakantan, Fca Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023

10. 12. Ld Counsel argued that 2nd proviso to amended section 68 of the Act (1st proviso to pre-amended section 68, which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012) is noted to be applicable to persons who are residents, who are further required to substantiate the 'source of source' of funds. This additional burden cast upon

M/S. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

68 of the paper book): - Contribution to State Gross Domestic Product - Enhancing Brand Equity of Chennai viz. consolidate Chennai / Tamil Nadu's position as Detroit of South Asia - Ancillary Development i.e. additional investment by vendors and supporting service providers - Enhancement in Employment Potential from about 4000 to 7600 persons 25. In view of the above benefits, the GOTN agreed

BAREFOOT RESORTS & LEISURES INDIA P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

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.

10. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the misconstruction of the provisions of section 68 of the Act would vitiate the decision to tax share capital contribution in the hands of the appellant especially in para 55 of the impugned order on various grounds. 11. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that having taken on record the objections

BAREFOOT RESORTS & LEISURES INDIA P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

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.

10. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the misconstruction of the provisions of section 68 of the Act would vitiate the decision to tax share capital contribution in the hands of the appellant especially in para 55 of the impugned order on various grounds. 11. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that having taken on record the objections

BAREFOOT RESORTS & LEISURES INDIA P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

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.

10. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the misconstruction of the provisions of section 68 of the Act would vitiate the decision to tax share capital contribution in the hands of the appellant especially in para 55 of the impugned order on various grounds. 11. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that having taken on record the objections

BAREFOOT RESORTS & LEISURES INDIA P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

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.

10. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the misconstruction of the provisions of section 68 of the Act would vitiate the decision to tax share capital contribution in the hands of the appellant especially in para 55 of the impugned order on various grounds. 11. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that having taken on record the objections

BAREFOOT RESORTS & LEISURES INDIA P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

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.

10. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the misconstruction of the provisions of section 68 of the Act would vitiate the decision to tax share capital contribution in the hands of the appellant especially in para 55 of the impugned order on various grounds. 11. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that having taken on record the objections

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

10. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer ought not to have added Rs.15,78,600/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68. The provisions of section 68 cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13.1 The AO in assessment year 2007-08 added a sum of Rs.6

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

10. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer ought not to have added Rs.15,78,600/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68. The provisions of section 68 cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13.1 The AO in assessment year 2007-08 added a sum of Rs.6

M/S. SHREE BATTERY HOUSE,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

10. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer ought not to have added Rs.15,78,600/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68. The provisions of section 68 cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13.1 The AO in assessment year 2007-08 added a sum of Rs.6

M/S. SHREE BATTERY HOUSE,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

10. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer ought not to have added Rs.15,78,600/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68. The provisions of section 68 cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13.1 The AO in assessment year 2007-08 added a sum of Rs.6

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

10. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer ought not to have added Rs.15,78,600/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68. The provisions of section 68 cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13.1 The AO in assessment year 2007-08 added a sum of Rs.6

SMT. SHARMILA S. JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

10. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer ought not to have added Rs.15,78,600/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68. The provisions of section 68 cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13.1 The AO in assessment year 2007-08 added a sum of Rs.6