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.

section 68 of the Act , the assessee must fulfill following criteria:- a) Identity of the party claimed as investor by assessee company, b) Genuineness of the transaction & c) Creditworthiness of the party/person claimed as investor. 7. In this case, the FIPB has rejected application filed by the assessee for regularization of allotment of shares itself goes to prove beyond

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.

section 68 of the Act , the assessee must fulfill following criteria:- a) Identity of the party claimed as investor by assessee company, b) Genuineness of the transaction & c) Creditworthiness of the party/person claimed as investor. 7. In this case, the FIPB has rejected application filed by the assessee for regularization of allotment of shares itself goes to prove beyond

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.

section 68 of the Act , the assessee must fulfill following criteria:- a) Identity of the party claimed as investor by assessee company, b) Genuineness of the transaction & c) Creditworthiness of the party/person claimed as investor. 7. In this case, the FIPB has rejected application filed by the assessee for regularization of allotment of shares itself goes to prove beyond

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.

section 68 of the Act , the assessee must fulfill following criteria:- a) Identity of the party claimed as investor by assessee company, b) Genuineness of the transaction & c) Creditworthiness of the party/person claimed as investor. 7. In this case, the FIPB has rejected application filed by the assessee for regularization of allotment of shares itself goes to prove beyond

AADARSH SURANA, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act. By making an addition u/s.69 of the Act, the AO has clearly exceeded the jurisdiction vested in him and travelled beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. 96. For this reason, we are unable to subscribe to the reasoning adopted by the Ld.CIT(A) that since the asset was included in the gain arising on account

NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales account. Addition of credit in bullion margin money account has been sustained by us, only to the extent not transferred/accounted

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales account. Addition of credit in bullion margin money account has been sustained by us, only to the extent not transferred/accounted

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI vs. SHIV SAHAI & SONS (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales account. Addition of credit in bullion margin money account has been sustained by us, only to the extent not transferred/accounted

SAHAI & SONS (I) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales account. Addition of credit in bullion margin money account has been sustained by us, only to the extent not transferred/accounted

SHAMIMA HASEENATHUL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

Section 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, the addition is confirmed and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Before us, the assessee has filed the petition for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CUDDALORE vs. CHOLAJI KANNIYALAL, KAMARAJ STREET, VILLUPURAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1674/Chny/2024 & Co No.: 51/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Cholaji Kanniyalal, Income Tax, V. No. 191, Kamaraj Street, Circle -1, Villupuram, Cuddalore – 607 002. Tamil Nadu – 605 602. [Pan: Aaepk-4555-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Assessee By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit Department By : Ms. Nidhi D. Jain, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2024

section 68 of the Income-tax Act 1961. 2.1. The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that even the sales were made out of the available stock on hand, the closing cash balance as on 08.11.2016 was Rs.2,24,39,163/- and the assessee has nor deposited the entire amount immediately after the ban on specified notes was imposed

M/S ALPHA REALITY,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 3, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1706/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Alpha Reality Acit No.1-A, 4Th Floor, Jhava Plaza, Non-Corporate Circle-3, बनाम/ Vs. Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aajfa-8210-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj (Ca)- Ld.Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-11-2023 आदेश / O R D E R

105/- in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 7. The CIT (Appeals) went wrong in recording the findings in this regard from para 39 to para 41 of the impugned order without assigning proper reasons and justification. 8. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the presumptions/conclusions of reached on the nature of business

M/S SRI SARAVANA TYRADERS(FIRM),COIMBATORE vs. IITO, NON CORPORATE WARD-1(5), COIMBATORE

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.380/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) M/S. Sri Saravana Traders (Firm) Vs. The Income Tax Officer, S.F.No.54/2, Non Corporate Ward 1(5) Pichanur Village, Coimbatore 641 018 Navakkarai Post, Coimbatore 641 105. [Pan: Achfs 2783D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashwin D. Gowda, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

105. [PAN: ACHFS 2783D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri Ashwin D. Gowda, IRS, Addl. CIT. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 22.10.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member) This

DCIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. P.PAWAN KUMAR JAIN, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross-objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.672/Mds/2015 & C.O. No.44/Mds/2015 (In I.T.A. No.672/Mds/2015) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

105, Pammal Cort Circle – I, Apartments, 1st floor, Raja Annamalai Street, Kumbakonam – 612 001. Purasavakkam, Chennai - 600 084. PAN : AFUPJ 4906 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent & Cross-Objector) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri A.B. Koli, JCIT ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 26.11.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. KISHORE KUMAR JAIN, CHENNAI

In the result the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2847, 2848 & 2849 /Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Kishore Kumar Jain, Income Tax, Vs. 62, Bvk Sampath Road, Central Circle -2 (2), Vepery, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan: Aahpj-0401-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

105 TTJ Delhi 511 wherein it was held as under: “7. Insofar as the first question is concerned, in our view, the expression 'accumulated profits' as appearing in Section 2(22)(e) should be understood as meaning profits in the commercial sense that is the profits which have been earned by a company in the usual course of carrying

SMART MARKETING,TIRUCHIRAPPALLI vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), TIRUCHIRAPPALLI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1695/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Smart Marketing, The Income Tax Officer, No.19, Ground Floor, V. Ward -2(1), Arun Papers, 44, Williams Road, Opp To Gvn Hospital, Cantonment, Babu Road, Tiruchirapalli – 620 001. Tiruchirapalli – 620 008. [Pan: Adqfs-8517-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. C. Murugesan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

section 68 of the Act as held by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44. Further, the ld.AR also stated that the assessee had provided the entire financial statements of the lender along with the details of the turnover which is sufficiently covered for the source

VARAM CAPITAL PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP. CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI HON'BLE S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act. During appellate proceedings, the assessee has remained non-responsive despite multiple opportunities Varam Capital Pvt. Ltd. :- 4 -: provided u/s 250 of the Act as mentioned in the previous paragraphs. In the light of the fact that the nature and source of cash deposits have not been explained with documentary evidences, the addition made u/s.68

VAIRAVAN KAMARAJA,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-(8)1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2724/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Vairavan Kamaraja, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 36, First Main Road, Income Tax, Alwarthirunagar, Chennai 600 087. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Ahapk2551R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Veeraraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Varuvooru Sreedhar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. Before the ld. CIT(A) also, the assessee could not file any details and therefore, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order. However, before the Tribunal, by way of paper book, the assessee has furnished the following details: 1. Summary of statement explaining the cash deposits of assessee

CHINNAMUNIYAPPA VENKATESH,HOSUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, HOSUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

105. PAN: AOGPV-9858-K (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hosur. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Appellant by : Mr. C. Sathish, CA प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent by : Mr. P.Vijaideepan, JCIT सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 08.05.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order