DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. SHRI KANAKKILIANALLUR NARAYANA REDDIYAR MANIVANNAN,, TIRUPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

section 68 of the Act, nowhere it is mentioned ‘regular’ books of accounts. The intention of the legislature to mention as ‘books’ is to include all the books whether it is regular or irregular: disclosed or undisclosed. 1.3 CIT(A) relying the diary to hold that the ‘cash receipts’ as reflected in the diary are on account of business

DICT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. GSNR RICE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

section 68 of the Act, nowhere it is mentioned ‘regular’ books of accounts. The intention of the legislature to mention as ‘books’ is to include all the books whether it is regular or irregular: disclosed or undisclosed. 1.3 CIT(A) relying the diary to hold that the ‘cash receipts’ as reflected in the diary are on account of business

DICT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. GSNR RICE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

section 68 of the Act, nowhere it is mentioned ‘regular’ books of accounts. The intention of the legislature to mention as ‘books’ is to include all the books whether it is regular or irregular: disclosed or undisclosed. 1.3 CIT(A) relying the diary to hold that the ‘cash receipts’ as reflected in the diary are on account of business

ITO, NCW - I (4),, CHENNAI vs. SHRI KANAKILLIYANALLUR NARAYANAN NEHRU,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

section 68 of the Act, nowhere it is mentioned ‘regular’ books of accounts. The intention of the legislature to mention as ‘books’ is to include all the books whether it is regular or irregular: disclosed or undisclosed. 1.3 CIT(A) relying the diary to hold that the ‘cash receipts’ as reflected in the diary are on account of business

DICT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. GSNR RICE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

section 68 of the Act, nowhere it is mentioned ‘regular’ books of accounts. The intention of the legislature to mention as ‘books’ is to include all the books whether it is regular or irregular: disclosed or undisclosed. 1.3 CIT(A) relying the diary to hold that the ‘cash receipts’ as reflected in the diary are on account of business

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. SITARAM JEWELLERS, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

68,690/- Rs. 5,15,320/- & Rs.47,54,440/-for the AY(s) 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 respectively.” 17. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A) the revenue is in appeal before us. ITA No.915/Chny/2025 for the A.Y.2020-21 18. At the outset the ld.AR for the assessee relying on Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. SITARAM JEWELLERS, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

68,690/- Rs. 5,15,320/- & Rs.47,54,440/-for the AY(s) 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 respectively.” 17. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A) the revenue is in appeal before us. ITA No.915/Chny/2025 for the A.Y.2020-21 18. At the outset the ld.AR for the assessee relying on Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules

M/S AADHI ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 308/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Aadhi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, No.1-130, Perambur Barracks V. Central Circle-3(1), Road, Pattalam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 112. Pan: Aanca 0382P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Shri S. Neelakantan, Fca Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023

3. The assessee's contention that it is not required to substantiate the source of source for non-resident investors is contrary to the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 3.1 The 2nd proviso to Section 68 specifically deals only with the case where credit is recorded in the books of the assessee company

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI, MADURAI vs. TRANSWORLD GARNET INDIA PVT LTD.,, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1872, 1873, 1875, 1877 & 1878/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -2, Madurai. Vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt. Ltd., 500, Pantheaon Road, Egmore S.O., Chennai - 600 008. [Pan: Aaact-3408-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Five Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Id.Cit(A)”]. The Impugned Orders Of The Id.Cit(A) Arise Out Of The Assessment Orders Framed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”], In Respect Of The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2017-18. The Particulars Of The Respective Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Set Out Hereinbelow:- S. No

45. In light of the above submissions, the Id.AR argued that the Id.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the additions by rendering well-reasoned and cogent findings, which are neither perverse nor contrary to law. It was therefore prayed that the order of the Id.CIT(A) be upheld and the appeals preferred by the Revenue be dismissed on merits

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI, MADURAI vs. TRANSWORLD GARNET INDIA PVT LTD.,, CHENNAI

45. In light of the above submissions, the Id.AR argued that the Id.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the additions by rendering well-reasoned and cogent findings, which are neither perverse nor contrary to law. It was therefore prayed that the order of the Id.CIT(A) be upheld and the appeals preferred by the Revenue be dismissed on merits

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE vs. MS DAR PARADISE PVT. LTD., 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.: 1106/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Dar Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. 599, Raja Street, Corporate Circle -1, Coimbatore – 641 001. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aafcd-3066-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024

3. The ld. DR, referring to petition filed by the Assessing Officer submitted that, the order of the ld. CIT(A) in the instant case is received on 21.03.2023 and last date for filing of further appeal before the Tribunal was on or before 20.05.2023. The appellant has filed appeal on 03.10.2023 with a delay of 136 days and reasons

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

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

45. The Ld. AR further submitted that the provisions of section 50B of the Act relating to slump sale were also not applicable to the facts of the case, inasmuch as the conversion was not in the nature of a sale but was a statutory reorganisation expressly contemplated under section 47(xiv) of the Act. 64. Per contra

TAMIL NADU BRICK INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

3. APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 45(2) - BRICK CHAMBER LANDS OWNED BY THE FIRM AS A BUSINESS ASSET CONVERTED INTO STOCK - IN -TRADE. 4.3.1 In this respect we submit that the capital asset of land belonging to the assessee Firm was treated as stock-in —trade in the year 1996-1997 itself as per Sec.45(2) of the l.T.Act,1961 (after