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 lncome tax Act. The credit of sum of Rs. 4,65,84,375/- in the books of the assessee company is therefore treated as "Unaccounted Cash Credit" u/s 68 of the IT Act as in my opinion, the explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory

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 lncome tax Act. The credit of sum of Rs. 4,65,84,375/- in the books of the assessee company is therefore treated as "Unaccounted Cash Credit" u/s 68 of the IT Act as in my opinion, the explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory

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 lncome tax Act. The credit of sum of Rs. 4,65,84,375/- in the books of the assessee company is therefore treated as "Unaccounted Cash Credit" u/s 68 of the IT Act as in my opinion, the explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory

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 lncome tax Act. The credit of sum of Rs. 4,65,84,375/- in the books of the assessee company is therefore treated as "Unaccounted Cash Credit" u/s 68 of the IT Act as in my opinion, the explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE2(4), CHENNAI vs. S. ELAMBHARATHI, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cos\nfiled by the assessee are dismissed

220 and 221/Chny/2022]\nThe Deputy Commissioner of\nIncome Tax, Central Circle -2 (4),\nRoom No. B6, Investigation Building,\nNo. 46, Mahatma Gandhi Road,\nChennai 34.\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\nVs. Shri S. Elambharathi,\nFlat No. 5, Ground Floor, 364,\nKurupam Court, Lloyds Road,\nGopalapuram, Chennai 600 086.\n[PAN: AACPE3945N]\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross Objector)\nShri V. Nandakumar, CIT\nShri G. Baskar

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. V.V.D.MURALI, CHETTUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.84/Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011)

220/- as on 31.03.2009 included a flat at Alwarpet (an immovable property) purchased in F.Y. I.T.A.No.84/Mds/2015 :- 10 -: 2005-06 for Rs.22,34,600/- and a vacant site at Kadapakkam purchased prior to 31.03.2004, for Rs.4,39,655/-. Similarly. the plant and machinery, which are included in the fixed assets also included vibrators and mixing machines worth Rs.5

VARADAPPAN NATARAJAN,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

220. In Vipan Khanna v. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that assessment proceedings come to an end and the matter becomes final the moment there was no scrutiny notice within stipulated period of time. "..... Another important change incorporated in sub- section (2) of section 143 of the Act is that

SHRI V. NATARAJAN (INDIVIDUAL),RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

220. In Vipan Khanna v. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that assessment proceedings come to an end and the matter becomes final the moment there was no scrutiny notice within stipulated period of time. "..... Another important change incorporated in sub- section (2) of section 143 of the Act is that

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, TIRUNELVELI vs. ESAKKIMUTHU MUTHUVEL IYAPPAN, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.794/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Esakkimuthu Muthuvel Iyappan, Income Tax, No.4, Highways Road, Circle 1, Tisayanvilai, Tirunelveli 627 011. Tirunelveli 627 657. [Pan : Arupm 4796J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

220 86,500 make addition of Rs. 2,54,20,600/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, after deducting the deposit made for the month of October, 216 of Rs. 32,38,400/- from the SBN deposit of Rs. 2,86,59,000/-." "5. The Assessing Officer, arbitrarily, decided to make addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI vs. AVILAA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MANNADY, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.770/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Asst. Commissioner Of Avilaa Exports Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. Old No.269, New No.126, 4Th Floor, Thambu Chetty Street, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai. Mannady, Chennai-600001. [Pan: Aajca 2473K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Akshit Jain, C.A Fgथ" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Nfac], Delhi [Hereinafter “Cit(A)] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1060339451(1), Dated 31.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2017-18 U/S. 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 15.01.2022. :- 2 -: 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under:

Section 68 of the Act rws 115BBE taxed @60% and added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty u/s, 271AAC(1) of the Act is separately initiated. 19. Subject to the above, the total income of the assessee for the A.Y. 2017-18 is computed as under :- Particulars Amount (Rs.) Return Income 57,64,200 Add: Unexplained

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

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

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

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

220, 230 (P & H), where from the facts it ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 32 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells was clear that the assessee had claimed depreciation in the return at the rate of 50 per cent and he had nowhere disputed the fact that the admissible rate of depreciation to him was 40 per cent., such fact alone

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

220, 230 (P & H), where from the facts it ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 32 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells was clear that the assessee had claimed depreciation in the return at the rate of 50 per cent and he had nowhere disputed the fact that the admissible rate of depreciation to him was 40 per cent., such fact alone

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

220, 230 (P & H), where from the facts it ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 32 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells was clear that the assessee had claimed depreciation in the return at the rate of 50 per cent and he had nowhere disputed the fact that the admissible rate of depreciation to him was 40 per cent., such fact alone

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), CHENNAI vs. SHRI S. ELEMBHARATHI, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cos filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.220 & 221/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 & C.O. Nos. 7 & 8/Chny/2022 [In Ita Nos. 220 & 221/Chny/2022] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri S. Elambharathi, Income Tax, Central Circle -2 (4), Flat No. 5, Ground Floor, 364, Room No. B6, Investigation Building, Kurupam Court, Lloyds Road, No. 46, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Gopalapuram, Chennai 600 086. Chennai 34. [Pan: Aacpe3945N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: Both The Appeals & The Cross Objections Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Respectively Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 28.01.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2017-18. 2. Since The Issue Raised In The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

220 and 221/Chny/2022] The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Shri S. Elambharathi, Income Tax, Central Circle -2 (4), Flat No. 5, Ground Floor, 364, Room No. B6, Investigation Building, Kurupam Court, Lloyds Road, No. 46, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Gopalapuram, Chennai 600 086. Chennai 34. [PAN: AACPE3945N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department by : Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT Assessee by : Shri

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals (ITA Nos

220(2) of the Act\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the\nabove grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal, so as to\nenable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with the law.\n3. Redington Distribution Pte Limited (the Company' or 'the\nAppellant/Assessee