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

38,04,87,732/-\n32,66,93,496/-\n20,09,10,922/-\nas per books\n4\n% of net profit\n7.69\n7.54\n4.63\n5.\nBalance that requires\nto be considered\n10-7.69\n2.31%\n10-7.54=2.46%\n10-4.63=5.37%\n6.\n% of turnover to be\nconsidered in the\nhands\nof\nappellant\n2.31%\nof\n494,87,70,663\n2.46%\nOF\n433

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

38,04,87,732/-\n32,66,93,496/-\n20,09,10,922/-\nas per books\n4\n% of net profit\n7.69\n7.54\n4.63\n5.\nBalance that requires\nto be considered\n10-7.69 2.31%\n10-7.54=2.46%\n10-4.63=5.37%\n6.\n% of turnover to be\n2.31%\nof 2.46%\nof 5.37\n%\nof\nhands\nof\nconsidered

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

38,04,87,732/-\n32,66,93,496/-\n20,09,10,922/-\nas per books\n4\n% of net profit\n7.69\n7.54\n4.63\n5.\nBalance that requires\nto be considered\n10-7.69 2.31%\n10-7.54=2.46%\n10-4.63=5.37%\n6.\n% of turnover to be\nconsidered in the\nhands\nof\nappellant\n2.31%\nof\n494,87,70,663\n2.46%\nof\n433

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

bogus purchases, amounting to Rs. 53,25,720, representing the income component of such purchases totaling Rs. 4,43,81,000/-. 36. The assessee further stated that the seized records also reflected other inflows and outflows unrelated to the aforementioned items. A portion of this related to on-money received from the sale of land at Palakol, amounting

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

bogus purchases, amounting to Rs. 53,25,720, representing the income component of such purchases totaling Rs. 4,43,81,000/-. 36. The assessee further stated that the seized records also reflected other inflows and outflows unrelated to the aforementioned items. A portion of this related to on-money received from the sale of land at Palakol, amounting

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

10,396\n41. Based on the submissions and computations made, the\nassessee submitted that the income disclosed in the return filed in\nresponse to the notice under section 148—amounting to Rs.\n2,83,13,380/- for A.Y. 2019-20—and the revised statement of total\nincome, which included an additional amount of Rs.3,05,83,113/-.\n(incorporating Rs.23

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

10,57,47,420\n:- 29 -:\n*Note : amount offered\n@8% on transportation\nbills in revised statement\nof total income\n23,37,231\nNil\nNil\nLess: Amount claimed\ntowards Palakol\nexpenses in revised\nstatement of total\nincome\n(67,500)\nTotal income\n3,05,83,111\n10,57,47,420\nFirst Appellate Proceeding\n54. Aggrieved by the additions aggregating

INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-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

10,396\n41. Based on the submissions and computations made, the\nassessee submitted that the income disclosed in the return filed in\nresponse to the notice under section 148—amounting to Rs.\n2,83,13,380/- for A.Y. 2019-20—and the revised statement of total\nincome, which included an additional amount of Rs.3,05,83,113/-\n(incorporating Rs.23

SMT. SUDHA EASHWAR,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 14 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2342/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. Smt. Sudha Eashwar, The Income Tax Officer No.23A, P.T.Rajan Salai, Non-Corporate Ward-14(3) K.K.Nagar, Chennai Chennai-600 078. [Pan: Alxps 0601 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Sumathi Venkatraman, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

bogus and sham transactions to convert her unaccounted money into legitimate money through circuitous route of sale and purchase of listed shares of M/s Turbotech Engineering Limited which is a penny stock and the assessee is trying to take advantage of exemption provision as enshrined u/s 10(38) of the 1961 Act. The onus was on assessee to prove that

SANTOSH DADHA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 6(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2798/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Smt. Santosh Dadha, The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, Kalathi Pillai Street, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 6(3), Chennai 600 079. Chennai 600 006. [Pan: Aadpd8051F] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2020 : आदेश /O R D E R Per George Mathan: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai In Ita No. 211/Cit(A)- 5/2017-18 Dated 29.06.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. Shri D. Anand, Advocate, Represented On Behalf Of The Assessee & Ms. R. Anita, Jcit Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue.

bogus claim u/s. 10(38) of the Act. The evidences clearly show that the transactions of purchase and sale of the shares by the assessee herein are through BSE by paying STT. This is not a case for off-line purchase, nor is the case of direct purchase. Neither is the assessee’s name coming out in the Investigation report

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX OFFICE, TRICHY vs. RAMASAMY SIVAPRAKASAM, KARUR

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

section 260A of the Act, as a matter of routine." ITA Nos.1266 & 1267/Chny/2025 (AYs 2014-15 & 2016-17) Ramasamy Sivaprakasam :: 11 :: 11. In the present case also, if the impugned purchases are disallowed, it would result in an abnormal gross profit rate of 41.55% and a distorted net profit rate of 25.45% in a regular textile export business

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TRICHY, INCOME TAX OFFICE, TRICHY vs. RAMASAMY SIVAPRAKASAM, KARUR

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

section 260A of the Act, as a matter of routine." ITA Nos.1266 & 1267/Chny/2025 (AYs 2014-15 & 2016-17) Ramasamy Sivaprakasam :: 11 :: 11. In the present case also, if the impugned purchases are disallowed, it would result in an abnormal gross profit rate of 41.55% and a distorted net profit rate of 25.45% in a regular textile export business

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) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/A

bogus purchases was upheld, by observing\nas under:-\n\n\"10. Considering the submissions made by learned advocate\nMr.Sanghani as well as the finding of facts recorded by the CIT(A) and\nthe Tribunal, it appears that so far as the Question No.1 is concerned,\nthe CIT(A) has noted the fact that the Assessing Officer while making\naddition

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/

10% set out in Section\n43CA of the Act and therefore the AO was legally entitled to add the\ndifferential sum as deemed sales consideration of the assessee. The Ld.\nAR for the assessee has however asserted that, the lower authorities\nought to have referred the matters to the DVO as mandated in Section\n43CA(2) of the Act. According

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/

10% set out in Section\n43CA of the Act and therefore the AO was legally entitled to add the\ndifferential sum as deemed sales consideration of the assessee. The Ld.\nAR for the assessee has however asserted that, the lower authorities\nought to have referred the matters to the DVO as mandated in Section\n43CA(2) of the Act. According

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/

10% set out in Section\n43CA of the Act and therefore the AO was legally entitled to add the\ndifferential sum as deemed sales consideration of the assessee. The Ld.\nAR for the assessee has however asserted that, the lower authorities\nought to have referred the matters to the DVO as mandated in Section\n43CA(2) of the Act. According

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/

10% set out in Section\n43CA of the Act and therefore the AO was legally entitled to add the\ndifferential sum as deemed sales consideration of the assessee. The Ld.\nAR for the assessee has however asserted that, the lower authorities\nought to have referred the matters to the DVO as mandated in Section\n43CA(2) of the Act. According

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/

10% set out in Section\n43CA of the Act and therefore the AO was legally entitled to add the\ndifferential sum as deemed sales consideration of the assessee. The Ld.\nAR for the assessee has however asserted that, the lower authorities\nought to have referred the matters to the DVO as mandated in Section\n43CA(2) of the Act. According