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 -:

6 The Ld. LD.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of disallowances for Expenses without taking into consideration the fact that the expenses per se were bogus in nature. 125. The detailed discussion above regarding inflated transportation expenses is equally applicable to the purchases identified by the AO as bogus. While the AO sought

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

purchases are wholly bogus and should be disallowed is rejected. Additions under Sections 69A and 69C: 133. Regarding the additions made under sections 69A and 69C, the assessee has demonstrated that all such amounts are fully explained in the cash flow statement. All heads of income, other than the :- 55 -: ITA Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 ITA Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 Integrated Service

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

purchases are wholly bogus and should be disallowed is rejected. Additions under Sections 69A and 69C: 133. Regarding the additions made under sections 69A and 69C, the assessee has demonstrated that all such amounts are fully explained in the cash flow statement. All heads of income, other than the :- 55 -: ITA Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 ITA Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 Integrated Service

SHEETAL V. BHAT,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

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

bogus. Moreover, the Assessing Officer made an attempt to verify the purchases by 8 I.T.A. No.272/Mds/17 issuing notice under Section 133(6

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

section 40A(3) of the Act. Thus, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed for all the assessment year under appeal. 12. With regard to bogus purchase of copra, in the assessment for the assessment year 2013-14, the Assessing Officer has observed as under: 7. Bogus Purchase of copra: On verification, it is found that Shri.Shajahan has played

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

section 40A(3) of the Act. Thus, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed for all the assessment year under appeal. 12. With regard to bogus purchase of copra, in the assessment for the assessment year 2013-14, the Assessing Officer has observed as under: 7. Bogus Purchase of copra: On verification, it is found that Shri.Shajahan has played

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

section 40A(3) of the Act. Thus, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed for all the assessment year under appeal. 12. With regard to bogus purchase of copra, in the assessment for the assessment year 2013-14, the Assessing Officer has observed as under: 7. Bogus Purchase of copra: On verification, it is found that Shri.Shajahan has played

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

section 40A(3) of the Act. Thus, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed for all the assessment year under appeal. 12. With regard to bogus purchase of copra, in the assessment for the assessment year 2013-14, the Assessing Officer has observed as under: 7. Bogus Purchase of copra: On verification, it is found that Shri.Shajahan has played

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE vs. MS DAR PARADISE PVT. LTD., COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1106/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Dar Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. 599, Raja Street, Corporate Circle -1, Coimbatore – 641 001. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aafcd-3066-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024

133 (Jharkhand)}. 6.15 As per the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, before invocation of the said section, proper enquiry is needed. In the case of the appellant, no proper enquiries were conducted by the AO, which is clearly evident from the assessment records. Section 68 empowers the Assessing Officer to make enquiry specifically to be satisfied regarding

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 4 (1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. TAJ MOHAMED, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

bogus and added the same u/s.69A of the Act as unexplained to the tune of ₹3,13,66,333/-. On appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee asserted before him that the credits in the bank account represented sale-proceeds from trading in ‘raw skins & hides’. The assessee brought to the notice of the Ld.CIT(A) that his business

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. TAJ MOHAMED, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

bogus and added the same u/s.69A of the Act as unexplained to the tune of ₹3,13,66,333/-. On appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee asserted before him that the credits in the bank account represented sale-proceeds from trading in ‘raw skins & hides’. The assessee brought to the notice of the Ld.CIT(A) that his business

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

6 and 7 that payment for milk purchases are made within a week’s time by assessee to milk suppliers. The assessee had of his own voluntarily surrendered ` 2.06 crores during course of survey operations u/s 133A on 06.11.2013, towards waiver of sundry creditors on account of inflated purchases. While filing return of income with Revenue , the assessee itself

ACIT, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. LATE SHRI MAHAVEER BHANDARI, LEGAL HEIR- SMT. LALITHA BHANDARI, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2785/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Asst. Commissioner Of Late Shri Mahaveer Bhandari, Income Tax, Rep. By Legal Heir Smt. Lalitha Non-Corporate Circle 7(1), Vs. Bhandari, Chennai. 9, Athipattan Street, Mount Road, Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aadpb 877A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ajith Kumar Chordia, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025

133(6) was issued to EMIL to produce the valuation report to justify the revision of the asset value to Rs.76.79 crs. EMIL produced a valuation report of American Appraisal India Pvt. Ltd., a division of DUFF & PHELPS (D&P) submitted by Vinay Gupta. The appellant objected to the proposal of determining the Full Value of transaction

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. K.I. (INTERNATIONAL) LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

bogus purchases, sales, unsecured loans, share capital, etc. In his statement recorded on oath under section 132(4) of the Act, Shri Praveen Kumar Jain has admitted that he was indulged in providing accommodation entries and also explained the complete modus operandi of providing such entries. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has submitted that consequential findings

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. K.I. (INTERNATIONAL) LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

bogus purchases, sales, unsecured loans, share capital, etc. In his statement recorded on oath under section 132(4) of the Act, Shri Praveen Kumar Jain has admitted that he was indulged in providing accommodation entries and also explained the complete modus operandi of providing such entries. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has submitted that consequential findings

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:

133(6) of the 1961 Act to Bombay Stock Exchange. The BSE replied that assessee has not dealt in any other shares except dealing in shares of Turbotech Engineering Ltd. . The assessee is not a regular buyer and seller in shares and except for this alleged :- 17 -: transactions in Turbotech Engineering Ltd. , the assessee has not dealt within any other

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

133(6) to the concerned sub contractor who is stated to have undertaken certain works and also considering the fact that the assessee did not bother to produce any proper confirmation of accounts from the said party even after being told about the non compliance to the said statutory notice by the sub contractor. 6. The ld.CIT(A) is erroneous

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

133(6) to the concerned sub contractor who is stated to have undertaken certain works and also considering the fact that the assessee did not bother to produce any proper confirmation of accounts from the said party even after being told about the non compliance to the said statutory notice by the sub contractor. 6. The ld.CIT(A) is erroneous

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

133(6) to the concerned sub contractor who is stated to have undertaken certain works and also considering the fact that the assessee did not bother to produce any proper confirmation of accounts from the said party even after being told about the non compliance to the said statutory notice by the sub contractor. 6. The ld.CIT(A) is erroneous