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

ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD 1(4), , COIMBATORE vs. M/S SURABII GOLD , COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 372/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income-Tax Officer, M/S. Surabii Gold, Non-Corporate Ward 1(4), V. 138, Karuppa Gounder Street, Aayakar Bhavan, K G Street, 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 012. Coimbatore – 641 018. [Pan: Abufs-6503-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024

260/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that an enquiry made by the ITO (Intelligence & Criminal Investigation) on 23.02.2017, regarding unusually high deposits made by the assessee during demonetization period. During the course of investigation, a statement was also recorded under oath from Shri. K. Pugalenthi, partner

S4 CARLISLE PUBLISHING SERVICE P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

260 Rs.2,41,48,474 Subsequently, during the A. Y. 2008-09, the assessee had floated a wholly owned US subsidiary by name S4 Carlisle Publishing Services Inc. The assessee company has entered into a share transfer and purchase agreement on 06-04-2007 with M/s. Carlisle Communication Inc, US.A. Corporation :-4-: incorporated under the laws of IOWA whereby

SMT. SUDHA SURESH,KANYAKUMARI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NAGERCOIL

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Ble

section 68 to add the cash deposits during demonetization period. 7. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that the assessee submitted only the part details without giving an opportunity to the assessee to file the details required by him. 8. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have seen that there was adequate and sufficient reasons for not complying

DR.K.N.THRUNAVUKARASU,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1584/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Dr. K.N. Thirunavukarasu, The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 20, Kellys Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Business Circle Xiv, [Pan: Aacpt4864F] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Milind Madhukar Bhusari, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2016 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

260/-. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and the case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued. The Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 28.02.2013 by assessing total income of the assessee

S.P.MANI AND MOHAN DAIRY,ERODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, ERODE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

68 of the 1961 Act owing to difference between physical cash found during the course of survey proceedings and the cash in hand as is recorded in audited books of accounts maintained by the assessee as produced before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings ,the Ld.CIT(A) observed that there appears to be shortage of cash in hand

LIFECELL INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3334/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Lifecell International Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 26, Vandalur Corporate Circle 4(1), Kelambakkam Main Road, Chennai. Keelakkottaiyur, Chennai. [Pan: Aaeca-7997-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Ajith Kumar Choradia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

260/ c. Alternatively, allow the expenditure disallowed under Section 35(1)(iv) of the Act d. Pass such other orders it may deem fit.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant M/s. Life Cell International Private Ltd is engaged in the business of processing, preservation and storage of stem cells obtained from umbilical cord, menstrual

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

68,77,636/- being 200% of the ITA Nos.554 & 561/Chny/2023 (AY 2018-19) M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. :: 3 :: aggregate expenditure u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. The AO in the course of assessment, had required the assessee to submit the Form 3CL issued by the DSIR, to which the assessee is noted to have submitted that, the DSIR

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI vs. M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

68,77,636/- being 200% of the ITA Nos.554 & 561/Chny/2023 (AY 2018-19) M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. :: 3 :: aggregate expenditure u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. The AO in the course of assessment, had required the assessee to submit the Form 3CL issued by the DSIR, to which the assessee is noted to have submitted that, the DSIR

RAI ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO CENTRAL WARD 5(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal raised by the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1728/Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2015-16 M/S.Rai Ispat Private Limited, Income Tax Officer, No. 6/13 Park Avenue, Central Ward-5(4), Kesavaperumalpuram, Chennai Chennai-600 028. [Pan: Aaacr1743C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B.Ramakrishnan, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri G.Suresh, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024

260 9. 25.03.2015 Radha Industries Payment 70,00,000 10. 26.03.2015 Radha Industries Payment 70,00,000 11. 26.03.2015 Radha Industries Payment 70,00,000 12. 26.03.2015 Ram Krishan Kulwant Rai Payment 46,905 Holding Pvt.Ltd 13. 27.03.2015 Radha Industries Payment 1,50,00,000 The assesse company, vide its letter dated 22.6.17 has also mentioned that "share application money

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

260,329 7 Tahini 341,124 8 Wealth 1,091,324 9 DOTS 360,778 10 Hardil and Sarsol (Nominal Value) 60,992 Total Brand Value (for the entity as a 669,345,155 Whole) Less : Variance for Errors in Estimation 10% 66,934,515 Net Brand Value 602,410,640 Brand Value (in Crores) 60.24 8.6 Hence, according

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

260,329 7 Tahini 341,124 8 Wealth 1,091,324 9 DOTS 360,778 10 Hardil and Sarsol (Nominal Value) 60,992 Total Brand Value (for the entity as a 669,345,155 Whole) Less : Variance for Errors in Estimation 10% 66,934,515 Net Brand Value 602,410,640 Brand Value (in Crores) 60.24 8.6 Hence, according

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

260,329 7 Tahini 341,124 8 Wealth 1,091,324 9 DOTS 360,778 10 Hardil and Sarsol (Nominal Value) 60,992 Total Brand Value (for the entity as a 669,345,155 Whole) Less : Variance for Errors in Estimation 10% 66,934,515 Net Brand Value 602,410,640 Brand Value (in Crores) 60.24 8.6 Hence, according

M/S. V.V.VANNIAPERUMAL & SONS,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. PCIT-2, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

260,329 7 Tahini 341,124 8 Wealth 1,091,324 9 DOTS 360,778 10 Hardil and Sarsol (Nominal Value) 60,992 Total Brand Value (for the entity as a 669,345,155 Whole) Less : Variance for Errors in Estimation 10% 66,934,515 Net Brand Value 602,410,640 Brand Value (in Crores) 60.24 8.6 Hence, according

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

260,329 7 Tahini 341,124 8 Wealth 1,091,324 9 DOTS 360,778 10 Hardil and Sarsol (Nominal Value) 60,992 Total Brand Value (for the entity as a 669,345,155 Whole) Less : Variance for Errors in Estimation 10% 66,934,515 Net Brand Value 602,410,640 Brand Value (in Crores) 60.24 8.6 Hence, according

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

260,329 7 Tahini 341,124 8 Wealth 1,091,324 9 DOTS 360,778 10 Hardil and Sarsol (Nominal Value) 60,992 Total Brand Value (for the entity as a 669,345,155 Whole) Less : Variance for Errors in Estimation 10% 66,934,515 Net Brand Value 602,410,640 Brand Value (in Crores) 60.24 8.6 Hence, according