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

2) of the Act had expired. Accordingly, the income-tax assessments for AYs assessments for AYs 2018-19 to 2019-20 weren’t pendin weren’t pending before AO on the date of search, therefore, those years didn’t abate date of search, therefore, those years didn’t abate date of search, therefore, those years didn’t abate consequent

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

2) of the Act had expired. Accordingly, the income-tax assessments for AYs assessments for AYs 2018-19 to 2019-20 weren’t pendin weren’t pending before AO on the date of search, therefore, those years didn’t abate date of search, therefore, those years didn’t abate date of search, therefore, those years didn’t abate consequent

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

2) of the Act had expired. Accordingly, the income-tax assessments for AYs assessments for AYs 2018-19 to 2019-20 weren’t pendin weren’t pending before AO on the date of search, therefore, those years didn’t abate date of search, therefore, those years didn’t abate date of search, therefore, those years didn’t abate consequent

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

2) [2010]187 Taxman\n188 (Madras) has held as under with respect to the inflation of purchase\nexpenditure as under.\n\"In respect of the first question, the inflation of the purchase\nexpenditure of the old bottles, though for the sake of claim the relief\nwas disputed before the authorities, yet the fact remained that such\nhuge inflation had been

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

2) [2010]187 Taxman\n188 (Madras) has held as under with respect to the inflation of purchase\nexpenditure as under.\n\"In respect of the first question, the inflation of the purchase\nexpenditure of the old bottles, though for the sake of claim the relief\nwas disputed before the authorities, yet the fact remained that such\nhuge inflation had been

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

2) [2010]187 Taxman\n188 (Madras) has held as under with respect to the inflation of purchase\nexpenditure as under.\n\"In respect of the first question, the inflation of the purchase\nexpenditure of the old bottles, though for the sake of claim the relief\nwas disputed before the authorities, yet the fact remained that such\nhuge inflation had been

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

2) [2010]187 Taxman\n188 (Madras) has held as under with respect to the inflation of purchase\nexpenditure as under.\n\"In respect of the first question, the inflation of the purchase\nexpenditure of the old bottles, though for the sake of claim the relief\nwas disputed before the authorities, yet the fact remained that such\nhuge inflation had been

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

2) [2010]187 Taxman\n188 (Madras) has held as under with respect to the inflation of purchase\nexpenditure as under.\n\n\"In respect of the first question, the inflation of the purchase\nexpenditure of the old bottles, though for the sake of claim the relief\nwas disputed before the authorities, yet the fact remained that such\nhuge inflation

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 as against appellant’s voluntary disallowance of 12% in ROI u/s 148. 3.1 On facts and under the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai erred in adjudicating the disallowances at 20% of the alleged bogus purchases, which is over and above the disallowances of 12% on alleged bogus purchases voluntarily returned

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 as against appellant’s voluntary disallowance of 12% in ROI u/s 148. 3.1 On facts and under the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai erred in adjudicating the disallowances at 20% of the alleged bogus purchases, which is over and above the disallowances of 12% on alleged bogus purchases voluntarily returned

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

11 -:\nport-handling expenses, treating the entire gross receipts of Rs.3.02\ncrores as income. The AO noted that the offer of income at 8% was\nmade only in the revised statement of income and therefore could not\nbe considered.\n44. Regarding the alleged bogus purchases involving Zaheer Abbas\nand Sreedhar, the AO observed that these invoices were not\nsupported

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

bogus\npurchases as against appellant's voluntary disallowance of 12% in\nROI u/s 148.\n3.1 On facts and under the circumstances of the case, the learned\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai erred in\nadjudicating the disallowances at 20% of the alleged bogus\npurchases, which is over and above the disallowances of 12% on\nalleged bogus purchases voluntarily returned

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

bogus\npurchases as against appellant's voluntary disallowance of 12% in\nROI u/s 148.\n3.1 On facts and under the circumstances of the case, the learned\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai erred in\nadjudicating the disallowances at 20% of the alleged bogus\npurchases, which is over and above the disallowances of 12% on\nalleged bogus purchases voluntarily returned

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

bogus\npurchases as against appellant's voluntary disallowance of 12% in\nROI u/s 148.\n3.1 On facts and under the circumstances of the case, the learned\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai erred in\nadjudicating the disallowances at 20% of the alleged bogus\npurchases, which is over and above the disallowances of 12% on\nalleged bogus purchases voluntarily returned

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

2% of thevalue of purchase making it at 17% of\nthe value of purchase. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A),\nboth the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before us.\n\n8.4\nWe have heard both the parties. From the facts placed before us, it\nis noted that, the search team had found electronic data

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, TIRUPUR, TIRUPUR vs. LOOCUST INCORP, TIRUPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee vide CO Nos

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1692, 1693, 1694 & 1695 / Chny/2025 Assessment Years-2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Loocust Incorp, No.28A, Mgr Nagar, 14Th Street, Circle-1(1) Tirupur. Pn Road, Tirupur, Tamil Nadu-641 602. [Pan: Aabfl6721C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Co Nos.-77, 78, 79 & 80 / Chny/2025, Assessment Years-2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Loocust Incorp, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.28A, Mgr Nagar, 14Th Street, Circle-1(1) Pn Road, Tirupur, Tirupur. Tamil Nadu-641 602. [Pan: Aabfl6721C] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.T.Banusekar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

bogus purchases.  Pass such other orders as the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal may deem fit….” 9.0 In support of the Revenue appeals, the Ld.DR vociferously argued in favour of the order of Ld.AO and assailed the order of Ld.CIT(A). It was contended that the Ld.CIT(A) has, while according relief, has passed a non-speaking order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, TIRUPUR vs. LOOCUST INCORP, TIRUPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee vide CO Nos

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1692, 1693, 1694 & 1695 / Chny/2025 Assessment Years-2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Loocust Incorp, No.28A, Mgr Nagar, 14Th Street, Circle-1(1) Tirupur. Pn Road, Tirupur, Tamil Nadu-641 602. [Pan: Aabfl6721C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Co Nos.-77, 78, 79 & 80 / Chny/2025, Assessment Years-2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Loocust Incorp, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.28A, Mgr Nagar, 14Th Street, Circle-1(1) Pn Road, Tirupur, Tirupur. Tamil Nadu-641 602. [Pan: Aabfl6721C] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.T.Banusekar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

bogus purchases.  Pass such other orders as the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal may deem fit….” 9.0 In support of the Revenue appeals, the Ld.DR vociferously argued in favour of the order of Ld.AO and assailed the order of Ld.CIT(A). It was contended that the Ld.CIT(A) has, while according relief, has passed a non-speaking order

DEPUTY COMMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, TIRUPUR, TIRUPUR vs. LOOCUST INCORP, TIRUPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee vide CO Nos

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1692, 1693, 1694 & 1695 / Chny/2025 Assessment Years-2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Loocust Incorp, No.28A, Mgr Nagar, 14Th Street, Circle-1(1) Tirupur. Pn Road, Tirupur, Tamil Nadu-641 602. [Pan: Aabfl6721C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Co Nos.-77, 78, 79 & 80 / Chny/2025, Assessment Years-2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Loocust Incorp, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.28A, Mgr Nagar, 14Th Street, Circle-1(1) Pn Road, Tirupur, Tirupur. Tamil Nadu-641 602. [Pan: Aabfl6721C] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.T.Banusekar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

bogus purchases.  Pass such other orders as the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal may deem fit….” 9.0 In support of the Revenue appeals, the Ld.DR vociferously argued in favour of the order of Ld.AO and assailed the order of Ld.CIT(A). It was contended that the Ld.CIT(A) has, while according relief, has passed a non-speaking order