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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Central Circle-2(4), 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Integrated Service Point Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 30.12.2025 - : 2 -:

bogus purchases, transportation and port handling charges, and income arising from peak cash flows. Simultaneously, the same Excel sheet records outflows for “speed money,” repayment of mobilized funds, interest payments, and other incidental business expenses, showing a clear correspondence between inflows and outflows. 103. Therefore, when the seized records demonstrate that the amounts received through diversion were used exclusively

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, transportation and port handling charges, and income arising from peak cash flows. Simultaneously, the same Excel sheet records outflows for “speed money,” repayment of mobilized funds, interest payments, and other incidental business expenses, showing a clear correspondence between inflows and outflows. 103. Therefore, when the seized records demonstrate that the amounts received through diversion were used exclusively

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, transportation and port handling charges, and income arising from peak cash flows. Simultaneously, the same Excel sheet records outflows for “speed money,” repayment of mobilized funds, interest payments, and other incidental business expenses, showing a clear correspondence between inflows and outflows. 103. Therefore, when the seized records demonstrate that the amounts received through diversion were used exclusively

M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

115-JA consequent to splitting of Section 80-IA into Section 80-IA and 80-IB by Finance Act 1999 with effect from 01.04.2000. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA or subsequently under Section 80-IB after amendment to the extent of 100% for the first five years and 30% for next five years

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES LTD., TUTICORIN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

115-JA consequent to splitting of Section 80-IA into Section 80-IA and 80-IB by Finance Act 1999 with effect from 01.04.2000. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA or subsequently under Section 80-IB after amendment to the extent of 100% for the first five years and 30% for next five years

S.P.MANI AND MOHAN DAIRY,ERODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, ERODE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

115 ITD 97(Pune-SB) to hold that the assessee is not entitled for additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the 1961 Act, vide appellate order dated 14.02.2018 passed by learned CIT(A). ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 15 -: 8.5 The learned CIT(A) directed AO to allow interest expenses claimed by the assessee with respect to term loans borrowed

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

115 1999-00 2,71,55,378 5,50,06,760 8,21,62,138 1998-99 1,99,85,049 3,54,08,920 5,53,93,969 ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 5 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 (vi) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohini Jain (Miss) vs. State of Karnataka and others

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

115 1999-00 2,71,55,378 5,50,06,760 8,21,62,138 1998-99 1,99,85,049 3,54,08,920 5,53,93,969 ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 5 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 (vi) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohini Jain (Miss) vs. State of Karnataka and others

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

115 1999-00 2,71,55,378 5,50,06,760 8,21,62,138 1998-99 1,99,85,049 3,54,08,920 5,53,93,969 ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 5 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 (vi) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohini Jain (Miss) vs. State of Karnataka and others

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

115 1999-00 2,71,55,378 5,50,06,760 8,21,62,138 1998-99 1,99,85,049 3,54,08,920 5,53,93,969 ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 5 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 (vi) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohini Jain (Miss) vs. State of Karnataka and others

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

115. For a transaction to fall within the ambit of section 45 of the Act, the following indispensable ingredients must co-exist: firstly, the existence of a capital asset; secondly, a transfer of such capital asset during the relevant previous year; thirdly, the accrual of profits or gains as a consequence of such transfer; and lastly, the absence

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

purchaser and developer of the land of 196.97 Acres. However, the assessee accepted the receipts of interest for Rs35 Crores as per the agreement made dated 29.12.2006 which was calculated on pro rata basis. But in connection with this interest income, the assessee claimed it as a capital receipt and hence it should not be treated as revenue receipt

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

purchaser and developer of the land of 196.97 Acres. However, the assessee accepted the receipts of interest for Rs35 Crores as per the agreement made dated 29.12.2006 which was calculated on pro rata basis. But in connection with this interest income, the assessee claimed it as a capital receipt and hence it should not be treated as revenue receipt

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

purchaser and developer of the land of 196.97 Acres. However, the assessee accepted the receipts of interest for Rs35 Crores as per the agreement made dated 29.12.2006 which was calculated on pro rata basis. But in connection with this interest income, the assessee claimed it as a capital receipt and hence it should not be treated as revenue receipt

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

purchaser and developer of the land of 196.97 Acres. However, the assessee accepted the receipts of interest for Rs35 Crores as per the agreement made dated 29.12.2006 which was calculated on pro rata basis. But in connection with this interest income, the assessee claimed it as a capital receipt and hence it should not be treated as revenue receipt

G.NARENDAR CHORDIA ,CHENNAI vs. ITO NCW 5(2) , CHENNAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for 14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

Section 147 of the Act, was not satisfied. 9. Arguing on the merits of the case, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that purchase of shares of M/s. Reward Agencies P. Ltd were proved through share certificates which reflected transfer of these shares from M/s. Sanklap Vincom (P) Ltd to the assessees. According to him, amalgamation of M/s. Reward Agencies

NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

bogus nor rejected by Revenue. All these, in our opinion indicate that credits in bullion margin money account could have been part of sale consideration. ITA Nos. 1447, 1448, 1988, :- 49 -: 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17. Section 68 of the Act is which apposite here is reproduced 54. hereunder:- ‘’Where any sum is found credited in the books

SAHAI & SONS (I) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

bogus nor rejected by Revenue. All these, in our opinion indicate that credits in bullion margin money account could have been part of sale consideration. ITA Nos. 1447, 1448, 1988, :- 49 -: 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17. Section 68 of the Act is which apposite here is reproduced 54. hereunder:- ‘’Where any sum is found credited in the books

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

bogus nor rejected by Revenue. All these, in our opinion indicate that credits in bullion margin money account could have been part of sale consideration. ITA Nos. 1447, 1448, 1988, :- 49 -: 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17. Section 68 of the Act is which apposite here is reproduced 54. hereunder:- ‘’Where any sum is found credited in the books