M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment year

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1356/Chny/2013, 1626/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2005-06 & 2010-11 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Assistant Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1628, 1629 & 1630/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Deputy Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1666/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Tax, V. Insurance Company Limited Large Tax Payer Unit, “Sundaram Towers” Chennai. 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate

6 appeals filed by the assessee and one appeal by the Revenue are directed against the separate, but identical orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax, LTU (Appeals), Chennai and pertains to assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11. Since, facts and issues are common, for the sake of convenience these appeals were heard together and are being disposed

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment year

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1356/Chny/2013, 1626/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2005-06 & 2010-11 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Assistant Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1628, 1629 & 1630/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Deputy Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1666/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Tax, V. Insurance Company Limited Large Tax Payer Unit, “Sundaram Towers” Chennai. 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate

6 appeals filed by the assessee and one appeal by the Revenue are directed against the separate, but identical orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax, LTU (Appeals), Chennai and pertains to assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11. Since, facts and issues are common, for the sake of convenience these appeals were heard together and are being disposed

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment year

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1356/Chny/2013, 1626/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2005-06 & 2010-11 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Assistant Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1628, 1629 & 1630/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Deputy Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1666/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Tax, V. Insurance Company Limited Large Tax Payer Unit, “Sundaram Towers” Chennai. 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate

6 appeals filed by the assessee and one appeal by the Revenue are directed against the separate, but identical orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax, LTU (Appeals), Chennai and pertains to assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11. Since, facts and issues are common, for the sake of convenience these appeals were heard together and are being disposed

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment year

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1356/Chny/2013, 1626/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2005-06 & 2010-11 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Assistant Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1628, 1629 & 1630/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Deputy Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1666/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Tax, V. Insurance Company Limited Large Tax Payer Unit, “Sundaram Towers” Chennai. 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate

6 appeals filed by the assessee and one appeal by the Revenue are directed against the separate, but identical orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax, LTU (Appeals), Chennai and pertains to assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11. Since, facts and issues are common, for the sake of convenience these appeals were heard together and are being disposed

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment year

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1356/Chny/2013, 1626/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2005-06 & 2010-11 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Assistant Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1628, 1629 & 1630/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Deputy Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1666/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Tax, V. Insurance Company Limited Large Tax Payer Unit, “Sundaram Towers” Chennai. 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate

6 appeals filed by the assessee and one appeal by the Revenue are directed against the separate, but identical orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax, LTU (Appeals), Chennai and pertains to assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11. Since, facts and issues are common, for the sake of convenience these appeals were heard together and are being disposed

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment year

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1356/Chny/2013, 1626/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2005-06 & 2010-11 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Assistant Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1628, 1629 & 1630/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Deputy Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1666/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Tax, V. Insurance Company Limited Large Tax Payer Unit, “Sundaram Towers” Chennai. 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate

6 appeals filed by the assessee and one appeal by the Revenue are directed against the separate, but identical orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax, LTU (Appeals), Chennai and pertains to assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11. Since, facts and issues are common, for the sake of convenience these appeals were heard together and are being disposed

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 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 of the Appellant with regard to the issues emanating from the remand report

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 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 of the Appellant with regard to the issues emanating from the remand report

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 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 of the Appellant with regard to the issues emanating from the remand report

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 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 of the Appellant with regard to the issues emanating from the remand report

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 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 of the Appellant with regard to the issues emanating from the remand report

SMT. RITA AGARWAL,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3263/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Rita Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4D, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aagpr4368A] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3264/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aflpa1767N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3265/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Shobha Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aaxpc8430H] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3266/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Smt. Bimla Devi, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aadpd8240L] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

6) Accommodation entries are used to introduce funds into books without payment of taxes. 7) The appellant has raised the issue of cross examination of Jagdish Prasad Roy and Beni Prasad Lahoti. However let us examine the issue at hand. First, it was appellant the bounden duty of the appellant to explain the credit in his books. The appellant explained

SMT. BIMLA DEVI,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3263/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Rita Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4D, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aagpr4368A] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3264/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aflpa1767N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3265/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Shobha Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aaxpc8430H] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3266/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Smt. Bimla Devi, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aadpd8240L] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

6) Accommodation entries are used to introduce funds into books without payment of taxes. 7) The appellant has raised the issue of cross examination of Jagdish Prasad Roy and Beni Prasad Lahoti. However let us examine the issue at hand. First, it was appellant the bounden duty of the appellant to explain the credit in his books. The appellant explained

SHRI PANKAJ AGARWAL,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3263/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Rita Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4D, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aagpr4368A] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3264/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aflpa1767N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3265/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Shobha Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aaxpc8430H] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3266/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Smt. Bimla Devi, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aadpd8240L] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

6) Accommodation entries are used to introduce funds into books without payment of taxes. 7) The appellant has raised the issue of cross examination of Jagdish Prasad Roy and Beni Prasad Lahoti. However let us examine the issue at hand. First, it was appellant the bounden duty of the appellant to explain the credit in his books. The appellant explained

SMT. SHOBHA AGARWAL,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3263/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Rita Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4D, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aagpr4368A] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3264/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aflpa1767N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3265/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Shobha Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aaxpc8430H] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3266/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Smt. Bimla Devi, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aadpd8240L] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

6) Accommodation entries are used to introduce funds into books without payment of taxes. 7) The appellant has raised the issue of cross examination of Jagdish Prasad Roy and Beni Prasad Lahoti. However let us examine the issue at hand. First, it was appellant the bounden duty of the appellant to explain the credit in his books. The appellant explained

M/S. DATALOG TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,COIMBATOREE vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION,, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 935, 936 & 937/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Datalog Technologies V. Income-Tax, Private Limited, International Taxation, Flat No. 6, 3Rd Street, Coimbatore. Narayandas Layout, Tatabad, Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan: Aabcd-5720-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

6,68,080/- AY Nature of Payment Amount in Rs. 2014-15 Service Charges 14,23,900/- Total 14,23,900/- 4. Based on the data available with the department, it was found that the assessee had made above remittances to non- resident AGANSA, Indonesia without deduction U/s.195 of the Act. The Ld.DCIT, International taxation, issued a notice U/s.201

M/S. DATALOG TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, INERNATIONAL TAXATION, , COIMBATORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 935, 936 & 937/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Datalog Technologies V. Income-Tax, Private Limited, International Taxation, Flat No. 6, 3Rd Street, Coimbatore. Narayandas Layout, Tatabad, Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan: Aabcd-5720-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

6,68,080/- AY Nature of Payment Amount in Rs. 2014-15 Service Charges 14,23,900/- Total 14,23,900/- 4. Based on the data available with the department, it was found that the assessee had made above remittances to non- resident AGANSA, Indonesia without deduction U/s.195 of the Act. The Ld.DCIT, International taxation, issued a notice U/s.201

M/S. DATALOG TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 935, 936 & 937/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Datalog Technologies V. Income-Tax, Private Limited, International Taxation, Flat No. 6, 3Rd Street, Coimbatore. Narayandas Layout, Tatabad, Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan: Aabcd-5720-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

6,68,080/- AY Nature of Payment Amount in Rs. 2014-15 Service Charges 14,23,900/- Total 14,23,900/- 4. Based on the data available with the department, it was found that the assessee had made above remittances to non- resident AGANSA, Indonesia without deduction U/s.195 of the Act. The Ld.DCIT, International taxation, issued a notice U/s.201

ACIT, CC -4 (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. KAG INDIA PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.758/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012 - 13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Kag India Private Limited, Income Tax, No.264/15-1, Sathyanathan Complex, 1St Floor, Velachery Road, Corporate Circle – 4(2), Chennai – 600 034. Tambaram East, Chennai – 600 059. [Pan: Aadck5381Q] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(थ&/Respondent) अपीलाथ& की ओर से / Appellant By : Mr. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit '(थ& की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai, Dated 21.02.2020 For The Assessment Year 2012 - 13. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 116 Days In Filing The Appeal Due To Outbreak Of Pandemic Covid-19 & Hence, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For Adjudication.

section 68 is prospective and not retrospective. 5.4.4 In the case of Lovely Exports Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) it was held that if share application money is received by an assessee from subscribers, whose name are given to Assessing Officer and the same turn out to be bogus, then the revenue is free to reopen their individual