DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as\nwell as the Cross-Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/

bogus for\nbeing non-verifiable. The AO accordingly rejected the book results and\nestimated the income of the assessee at a much higher sum. On appeal,\nthe Hon'ble High Court held that, even if the purchases were not\nverifiable, it was not in dispute that the assessee had indeed carried out\ncivil construction and therefore would have made purchases

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/

bogus for\nbeing non-verifiable. The AO accordingly rejected the book results and\nestimated the income of the assessee at a much higher sum. On appeal,\nthe Hon'ble High Court held that, even if the purchases were not\nverifiable, it was not in dispute that the assessee had indeed carried out\ncivil construction and therefore would have made purchases

RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/

bogus for\nbeing non-verifiable. The AO accordingly rejected the book results and\nestimated the income of the assessee at a much higher sum. On appeal,\nthe Hon'ble High Court held that, even if the purchases were not\nverifiable, it was not in dispute that the assessee had indeed carried out\ncivil construction and therefore would have made purchases

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as\nwell as the Cross-Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/

bogus for\nbeing non-verifiable. The AO accordingly rejected the book results and\nestimated the income of the assessee at a much higher sum. On appeal,\nthe Hon'ble High Court held that, even if the purchases were not\nverifiable, it was not in dispute that the assessee had indeed carried out\ncivil construction and therefore would have made purchases

RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/

bogus for\nbeing non-verifiable. The AO accordingly rejected the book results and\nestimated the income of the assessee at a much higher sum. On appeal,\nthe Hon'ble High Court held that, even if the purchases were not\nverifiable, it was not in dispute that the assessee had indeed carried out\ncivil construction and therefore would have made purchases

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as\nwell as the Cross-Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/

bogus for\nbeing non-verifiable. The AO accordingly rejected the book results and\nestimated the income of the assessee at a much higher sum. On appeal,\nthe Hon'ble High Court held that, even if the purchases were not\nverifiable, it was not in dispute that the assessee had indeed carried out\ncivil construction and therefore would have made purchases

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as\nwell as the Cross-Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/

bogus for\nbeing non-verifiable. The AO accordingly rejected the book results and\nestimated the income of the assessee at a much higher sum. On appeal,\nthe Hon'ble High Court held that, even if the purchases were not\nverifiable, it was not in dispute that the assessee had indeed carried out\ncivil construction and therefore would have made purchases

R. G. SUNDAR & CO,ERODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1599 & 1600/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. R.G. Sundar & Co., The Deputy Commissioner Erode Feeds Producers, Vs. Of Income Tax, 82, Perundurai Road, Central Circle-2, Perundurai – 638 001. Coimbatore Pan: Aaffr 3771C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate Shri Suraj Nahar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024

bogus purchases not supported by vouchers. The assessment was completed u/s.143 r.w.s. 147 of the Act after arriving at a net loss of Rs.1,22,08,160/-. As the assessee voluntarily included this sum of Rs.22,35,000/- as additional income, ITA Nos.1599 & 1600/Chny/2023 penalty

R. G. SUNDAR & CO,ERODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 , COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1599 & 1600/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. R.G. Sundar & Co., The Deputy Commissioner Erode Feeds Producers, Vs. Of Income Tax, 82, Perundurai Road, Central Circle-2, Perundurai – 638 001. Coimbatore Pan: Aaffr 3771C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate Shri Suraj Nahar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024

bogus purchases not supported by vouchers. The assessment was completed u/s.143 r.w.s. 147 of the Act after arriving at a net loss of Rs.1,22,08,160/-. As the assessee voluntarily included this sum of Rs.22,35,000/- as additional income, ITA Nos.1599 & 1600/Chny/2023 penalty

M/S. SHREE BATTERY HOUSE,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

bogus purchases made from various parties. The ld.CIT-DR stated that the ld.counsel for the assessee himself admitted the fact while arguing the appeals relating to penalty

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

bogus purchases made from various parties. The ld.CIT-DR stated that the ld.counsel for the assessee himself admitted the fact while arguing the appeals relating to penalty

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

bogus purchases made from various parties. The ld.CIT-DR stated that the ld.counsel for the assessee himself admitted the fact while arguing the appeals relating to penalty

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

bogus purchases made from various parties. The ld.CIT-DR stated that the ld.counsel for the assessee himself admitted the fact while arguing the appeals relating to penalty

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

bogus purchases made from various parties. The ld.CIT-DR stated that the ld.counsel for the assessee himself admitted the fact while arguing the appeals relating to penalty

M/S. SHREE BATTERY HOUSE,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

bogus purchases made from various parties. The ld.CIT-DR stated that the ld.counsel for the assessee himself admitted the fact while arguing the appeals relating to penalty

SMT. SHARMILA S. JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

bogus purchases made from various parties. The ld.CIT-DR stated that the ld.counsel for the assessee himself admitted the fact while arguing the appeals relating to penalty

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

bogus purchases made from various parties. The ld.CIT-DR stated that the ld.counsel for the assessee himself admitted the fact while arguing the appeals relating to penalty

M/S. SHREE BATTERY HOUSE,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

bogus purchases made from various parties. The ld.CIT-DR stated that the ld.counsel for the assessee himself admitted the fact while arguing the appeals relating to penalty

M/S. SHREE BATTERY HOUSE,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

bogus purchases made from various parties. The ld.CIT-DR stated that the ld.counsel for the assessee himself admitted the fact while arguing the appeals relating to penalty