SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 1613 To 1615/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

business requirements. Therefore, it has been claimed that these kinds of purchases cannot be termed as “bogus” and further claimed that the purchases cannot be termed as “bogus” and further claimed that the purchases cannot be termed as “bogus” and further claimed that the disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 1613 To 1615/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

business requirements. Therefore, it has been claimed that these kinds of purchases cannot be termed as “bogus” and further claimed that the purchases cannot be termed as “bogus” and further claimed that the purchases cannot be termed as “bogus” and further claimed that the disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 1613 To 1615/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

business requirements. Therefore, it has been claimed that these kinds of purchases cannot be termed as “bogus” and further claimed that the purchases cannot be termed as “bogus” and further claimed that the purchases cannot be termed as “bogus” and further claimed that the disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

income of the appellant. The AR contended that if the\ndisallowance of alleged bogus purchases made by the AO is considered,\nthe resultant net profit would be an unreasonable net profit which\ncannot be achieved in the kind of business

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

income of the appellant. The AR contended that if the\ndisallowance of alleged bogus purchases made by the AO is considered,\nthe resultant net profit would be an unreasonable net profit which\ncannot be achieved in the kind of business

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

income of the appellant. The AR contended that if the\ndisallowance of alleged bogus purchases made by the AO is considered,\nthe resultant net profit would be an unreasonable net profit which\ncannot be achieved in the kind of business

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

income of the appellant. The AR contended that if the\ndisallowance of alleged bogus purchases made by the AO is considered,\nthe resultant net profit would be an unreasonable net profit which\ncannot be achieved in the kind of business

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

income of the appellant. The AR contended that if the\ndisallowance of alleged bogus purchases made by the AO is considered,\nthe resultant net profit would be an unreasonable net profit which\ncannot be achieved in the kind of business

INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 1881, 1882, and 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23

business purposes and not diverted elsewhere. Nevertheless, considering the long-standing litigation and the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee voluntarily offered to declare income at the rate of 8% on the alleged transportation and port charges. 33. Regarding the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 1881, 1882, and 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23

business purposes and not diverted elsewhere. Nevertheless, considering the long-standing litigation and the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee voluntarily offered to declare income at the rate of 8% on the alleged transportation and port charges. 33. Regarding the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. ALBA INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

purchases. He pointed out that, the assessee was unable to e pointed out that, the assessee was unable to e pointed out that, the assessee was unable to furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly held furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly held furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. ALBA INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

purchases. He pointed out that, the assessee was unable to e pointed out that, the assessee was unable to e pointed out that, the assessee was unable to furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly held furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly held furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. ALBA INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

purchases. He pointed out that, the assessee was unable to e pointed out that, the assessee was unable to e pointed out that, the assessee was unable to furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly held furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly held furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. ALBA INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

purchases. He pointed out that, the assessee was unable to e pointed out that, the assessee was unable to e pointed out that, the assessee was unable to furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly held furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly held furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly

INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.1881, 1882,\nand 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys.2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are\nallowed

business purposes and not diverted\nelsewhere. Nevertheless, considering the long-standing litigation and\nthe facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee voluntarily\noffered to declare income at the rate of 8% on the alleged\ntransportation and port charges.\n33. Regarding the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. BALA MURUGAN COMPANY, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

purchases. He pointed out that, the assessee was unable to e assessee was unable to furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly held furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly held furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly held that these expenses were not genuine. He therefore supported

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. BALA MURUGAN COMPANY, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

purchases. He pointed out that, the assessee was unable to e assessee was unable to furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly held furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly held furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly held that these expenses were not genuine. He therefore supported

ACIT, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

Accordingly, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.1881, 1882,\nand 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys.2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are\nallowed

business purposes and not diverted\nelsewhere. Nevertheless, considering the long-standing litigation and\nthe facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee voluntarily\noffered to declare income at the rate of 8% on the alleged\ntransportation and port charges.\n33. Regarding the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases