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.

292 Delhi,350 ITR 407 the Hon'ble High Court clarified the position for invoking section 68 of the Income

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.

292 Delhi,350 ITR 407 the Hon'ble High Court clarified the position for invoking section 68 of the Income

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.

292 Delhi,350 ITR 407 the Hon'ble High Court clarified the position for invoking section 68 of the Income

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

68\nof the Act. By making an addition u/s.69 of the Act, the AO has clearly exceeded\nthe jurisdiction vested in him and travelled beyond the scope of limited scrutiny.\n96. For this reason, we are unable to subscribe to the reasoning adopted by\nthe Ld.CIT(A) that since the asset was included in the gain arising\non account

ITO CORPORATE WARD 6(1), CHENNAI vs. SCORPIO ENERGY RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Accordingly, in view of the above, Ground No. 4 to 4.5 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.:1368/Chny/2018 िनधा&रणवष&/Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

68 of the Act.We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) on this issue and to that extent, the same is confirmed. 9. In view of the above, the Ground Nos.2 to 2.5 raised by the Appellant/Revenue are dismissed. Ground Nos. 3 to 3.1 10. During the Assessment proceedings, the Assessee was asked

ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(5), CHENNAI vs. C.RAJALAKSHMY, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

Section 68 of the Act being unexplained marriage cash gifts received by the assessee, on estimate basis. 3. Assessee’s Cross Objection:- The assessee has raised two cross objections and they are briefly stated herein below for adjudication: CO No.186 /Chny/2017 (i) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming 25% of the aggregate marriage cash gifts received

MANOJ KUMAR DUGAR,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), ERODE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on legal issue as well as on merits of addition. 3. The assessee has raised, inter alia, the following grounds:  That the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the validity of reopening u/s 147 of the Act.  That

ITO, NCW - 3 (4),, CHENNAI vs. MS. KAVITHA SIDDAREDDY,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrimanjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.160/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. The Income Tax Officer, Ms.Kavithasiddareddy, Non-Corporate Ward-3(4), No.7/1, Surabhi, Chennai. Sriram Nagar, North Street, Opp. To Frontline Eye Hospital, Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. [Pan:Aeppk 0880 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit. : Assessee By Mr.D.Anand, Adv : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 11.05.2023 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 14.06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manjunatha.G:

Sections 68 to 69C, is "may" and not "shall" and hence significant amount of discretion has been vested with the AO which has to be judicially exercised. In the case of the assessee, under consideration, the assessee urges that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above decision were not followed since the entire expenditure/investment were

SUNDARAMURTHY SATHYAKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORP WARD 6(3), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1011/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sundaramurthy Sathyakumar, Income Tax Officer, V-31, 13Th Street, Anna Nagar, V. Corporate Ward -6(3), Chennai - 600 040. Chennai. [Pan: Aasps-1930-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. K. Meenakshi Sundaram, Itp अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.10.2024

section 68 can be made in an order for the reason that the improvements made by the assessee after taking in auction an immovable property were not truly reflected in the accounts and in the balance sheet. 4.The Commissioner(Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have appreciated the fact that an immovable property sold in public auction

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

292 68,366 1,53,169 Miscellaneous Expenses 8,43,619 12,19,005 15,72,009 7,93,942 Bank charges 3,08,944 2,08,596 17,97,571 65,195 Loading and unloading charges 900 32,980 50,000 24,000 10 I.T.A. Nos. 2202-2205/Chny/19 Travelling Expenses

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

292 68,366 1,53,169 Miscellaneous Expenses 8,43,619 12,19,005 15,72,009 7,93,942 Bank charges 3,08,944 2,08,596 17,97,571 65,195 Loading and unloading charges 900 32,980 50,000 24,000 10 I.T.A. Nos. 2202-2205/Chny/19 Travelling Expenses

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

292 68,366 1,53,169 Miscellaneous Expenses 8,43,619 12,19,005 15,72,009 7,93,942 Bank charges 3,08,944 2,08,596 17,97,571 65,195 Loading and unloading charges 900 32,980 50,000 24,000 10 I.T.A. Nos. 2202-2205/Chny/19 Travelling Expenses

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

292 68,366 1,53,169 Miscellaneous Expenses 8,43,619 12,19,005 15,72,009 7,93,942 Bank charges 3,08,944 2,08,596 17,97,571 65,195 Loading and unloading charges 900 32,980 50,000 24,000 10 I.T.A. Nos. 2202-2205/Chny/19 Travelling Expenses

PONMANI SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1011/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mrs. Ponmani Suresh, The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No.12A, New No.24, V. Income-Tax, Swarna Mangalam, East Road, Non Corporate Ward-2, West Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai 600 035. Pan Aalpp7516R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

68 (Mumbai – Trib.) 9. The appellant had produced cash book to explain the source of cash deposits in bank account. The Appellant had given explanations to ₹ 77,00,000/- credited to the cash book. If the explanations are not satisfactory, the addition has to be restricted to ₹ 77,00,000/-.” 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee

DCIT, TRICHY vs. K.C.P.SHIVARAMAN, KARUR

In the result, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-2010 and allow cross objection of the assessee

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

68 of the Act is justified. ITA Nos.1155 & 1156/15 :- 4 -: & CO No.69 & 70/2015 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that assessee running a lodge and real estate business had file his return of income for the impugned assessment year disclosing income of "87,05,011/- The assessment was completed on 26.03.2013 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income

DCIT, TRICHY vs. K.C.P.SHIVARAMAN, KARUR

In the result, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-2010 and allow cross objection of the assessee

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

68 of the Act is justified. ITA Nos.1155 & 1156/15 :- 4 -: & CO No.69 & 70/2015 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that assessee running a lodge and real estate business had file his return of income for the impugned assessment year disclosing income of "87,05,011/- The assessment was completed on 26.03.2013 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income

ACIT, NCC - 11 (1),, CHENNAI vs. SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHANTICHAND MEHTA,, 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.302/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Shantichand Mehta, Income Tax, No. 196, Govindappa Naicken Street, Non Corporate Circle 11(1), George Town, Chennai 600 001. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Aavps4928E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advdocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai, Dated 21.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: 1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Contrary To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Cit(A) Erroneously Held That The Assessee Had Not Claimed Exemption U/S.10(37) [P.8.2] Though The Assessee, Vide His Letter Dated 26-12-2018 Stated "The Compensation Of Rs.7,62,40,126/- Received Was Claimed Exempt U/S.10(37), However, It Was Erroneously Omitted To Be Mentioned In The Return Of Income Filed."

292 ITR 481 [Mad] & T.S.M.O.Mohamed Othuman vs. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 480 [Mad] which is in favour of the revenue. 6. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the decision of the Apex Court " Statutory interest under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is for delayed payment of compensation and is, therefore, a revenue receipt liable

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. MAHESWARA SUGARS LIMITED, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

68,809 2,99,95,355 7,43,64,164 3 2000-02 - 4,28,90,292 4,28,90,292