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

4) of the Act, it was inferred that, they had facilitated inflation of expenses of the assessee by providing bogus invoices of inflation of expenses of the assessee by providing bogus invoices of inflation of expenses of the assessee by providing bogus invoices of purchase of old bottles. Relying upon the material seized from purchase of old bottles. Relying upon

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

4) of the Act, it was inferred that, they had facilitated inflation of expenses of the assessee by providing bogus invoices of inflation of expenses of the assessee by providing bogus invoices of inflation of expenses of the assessee by providing bogus invoices of purchase of old bottles. Relying upon the material seized from purchase of old bottles. Relying upon

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

4) of the Act, it was inferred that, they had facilitated inflation of expenses of the assessee by providing bogus invoices of inflation of expenses of the assessee by providing bogus invoices of inflation of expenses of the assessee by providing bogus invoices of purchase of old bottles. Relying upon the material seized from purchase of old bottles. Relying upon

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

132(4) which is under Oath. 5. The Ld. LD.CIT(A) erred in considering the net taxable income at a new percentage of gross turnover as it is clearly brought out in the assessment order that the assessee had never made purchases impugned, which are considered as bogus purchases & in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High

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

132(4) which is under Oath. 5. The Ld. LD.CIT(A) erred in considering the net taxable income at a new percentage of gross turnover as it is clearly brought out in the assessment order that the assessee had never made purchases impugned, which are considered as bogus purchases & in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High

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

132(4) which is under Oath.\n5. The Ld. LD.CIT(A) erred in considering the net taxable income at\na new percentage of gross turnover as it is clearly brought out in the\nassessment order that the assessee had never made purchases\nimpugned, which are considered as bogus purchases & in view of\nthe decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High

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

132(4) which is under Oath.\n5. The Ld. LD.CIT(A) erred in considering the net taxable income at\na new percentage of gross turnover as it is clearly brought out in the\nassessment order that the assessee had never made purchases\nimpugned, which are considered as bogus purchases & in view of\nthe decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High

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

132(4) which is under Oath.\n5. The Ld. LD.CIT(A) erred in considering the net taxable income at\na new percentage of gross turnover as it is clearly brought out in the\nassessment order that the assessee had never made purchases\nimpugned, which are considered as bogus purchases & in view of\nthe decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High

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

132(4) which is under Oath.\n5. The Ld. LD.CIT(A) erred in considering the net taxable income at\na new percentage of gross turnover as it is clearly brought out in the\nassessment order that the assessee had never made purchases\nimpugned, which are considered as bogus purchases & in view of\nthe decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High

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

purchase order number, whereas the bogus invoices had no\nGRN details in remarks section of SAP.\nd) Based on the clarifications provided by Shri.S.Varatharaj on the\nevidences found, vide his sworn statement recorded u/s 132(4

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

purchase order number, whereas the bogus invoices had no\nGRN details in remarks section of SAP.\nd) Based on the clarifications provided by Shri.S.Varatharaj on the\nevidences found, vide his sworn statement recorded u/s 132(4

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

purchase order number, whereas the bogus invoices had no\nGRN details in remarks section of SAP.\nd) Based on the clarifications provided by Shri.S.Varatharaj on the\nevidences found, vide his sworn statement recorded u/s 132(4

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

purchase order number, whereas the bogus invoices had no\nGRN details in remarks section of SAP.\n\nd) Based on the clarifications provided by Shri.S.Varatharaj on the\nevidences found, vide his sworn statement recorded u/s 132(4

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

purchase order number, whereas the bogus invoices had no\nGRN details in remarks section of SAP.\nd) Based on the clarifications provided by Shri.S.Varatharaj on the\nevidences found, vide his sworn statement recorded u/s 132(4

MASILAMANI NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

132(4), in the hands of the assessee company is relatable to A.Y.\n2011-12, and does not pertain to any of the years in respect of which\njurisdiction had been assumed by the A.O under 153C in the case of the\nassessee company, therefore, the same on the said count also shall in no\nway go to confer validity

MASILAMANI NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

132(4), in the hands of the assessee company is relatable to A.Y.\n2011-12, and does not pertain to any of the years in respect of which\njurisdiction had been assumed by the A.O under 153C in the case of the\nassessee company, therefore, the same on the said count also shall in no\nway go to confer validity

MASILAMANI NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

132(4), in the hands of the assessee company is relatable to A.Y.\n2011-12, and does not pertain to any of the years in respect of which\njurisdiction had been assumed by the A.O under 153C in the case of the\nassessee company, therefore, the same on the said count also shall in no\nway go to confer validity

MASILAMANI NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

132(4), in the hands of the assessee company is relatable to A.Y.\n2011-12, and does not pertain to any of the years in respect of which\njurisdiction had been assumed by the A.O under 153C in the case of the\nassessee company, therefore, the same on the said count also shall in no\nway go to confer validity