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

3) of the Act and estimated the overall profit of the assessee at 10% of the turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) thus partly profit of the assessee at 10% of the turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) thus partly profit of the assessee at 10% of the turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) thus partly sustained the addition made

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

3) of the Act and estimated the overall profit of the assessee at 10% of the turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) thus partly profit of the assessee at 10% of the turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) thus partly profit of the assessee at 10% of the turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) thus partly sustained the addition made

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

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

VADIAPPAN SENTHILMURUGAN,ERODE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

142 has\nbeen issued to him, or\n(b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person\nbut no notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has been\nserved and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section\n(2) of section 143 has expired, or\n(c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made

SUNDARASAMY REP. BY KOKILA,TIRUPPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2206, 2204 & 2207/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2021-22

142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, before the date

SEETHADEVI,ERODE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, , COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2206, 2204 & 2207/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2021-22

142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, before the date

SUNDARASAMY KOHILA,TIRUPPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2206, 2204 & 2207/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2021-22

142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, before the date

SUNDARASAMY REP. BY KOKILA,TIRUPPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2206, 2204 & 2207/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2021-22

142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, before the date

ARUNRAJ,ERODE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRC 3, CBE, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2206, 2204 & 2207/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2021-22

142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, before the date

EVERYEADY SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,TRIUPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CRICLE 3, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2206, 2204 & 2207/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2021-22

142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, before the date

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COIMBATORE vs. MS VISWA AND DEVJI DIAMONDS PVT LTD, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.327/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-2018. The Deputy Commissioner Viswa & Devji Diamonds Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, Vs. New No.16,Old No.239, Corporate Circle 1, T.V.Swamy Road (East) Coimbatore R.S. Puram, Coimbatore 641 002. Pan: Aaccv 4942M

142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee calling for details of cash deposits during demonetization period. In response to notices, the assessee filed the details through e-proceedings. In support of the demonetization deposits the assessee submitted sales ledger, cash book, stock and VAT returns along with detailed statement of month wise cash deposits to the bank

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

3) of the Act, it cannot be said that the assessee had not made any purchases at all. The Ld. AR submitted that, it was a case where the purchases were indeed made, but the parties, who the assessee claims to have supplied ITA Nos.1266 & 1267/Chny/2025 (AYs 2014-15 & 2016-17) Ramasamy Sivaprakasam :: 6 :: these purchases, were not genuine. According

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

3) of the Act, it cannot be said that the assessee had not made any purchases at all. The Ld. AR submitted that, it was a case where the purchases were indeed made, but the parties, who the assessee claims to have supplied ITA Nos.1266 & 1267/Chny/2025 (AYs 2014-15 & 2016-17) Ramasamy Sivaprakasam :: 6 :: these purchases, were not genuine. According

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. M SHAHJAHAN, PALAKKAD

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessees in C

bogus or there should be inflation of purchases to invoke\nthe provisions of section 40A(3) of the LT. Act.\n4. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, it may noted that\nthe assessee and the so called agents could not provide full addresses\nof the farmers/suppliers of copras nor any details have been\nmaintained with regard to payment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. J S NIHAR BANU, PALAKKAD

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessees in C

bogus or there should be inflation of purchases to invoke\nthe provisions of section 40A(3) of the LT. Act.\n4. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, it may noted that\nthe assessee and the so called agents could not provide full addresses\nof the farmers/suppliers of copras nor any details have been\nmaintained with regard to payment

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

bogus purchases is Rs.4,41,70,464/- for the F.Y 2017-18 (From July\n2017), Rs.5,69,70,130/- for the F.Y 2018-19 and Rs.2,95,16,955/- for\nthe F.Y. 2019-20 (up to 4.8.2019).\nThe above seized materials were handed over to the undersigned on\n18.06.2021. On perusal of the seized material I am satisfied that

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 :

142(1) of Act dated, 15.11.2021, 15.02.2022 and 03.03.2022 seeking clarification on certain points. In Page - 4 - of 18 ITA Nos.1692, 1693, 1694 & 1695/Chny/2025 & CO Nos.77, 78, 79 & 80/Chny/2025 response, the appellant filed reply dated 09.03.2022. Thereafter, the AO issued show cause notice dated 16.03.2022 against which the appellant submitted its response on 27.03.2022. 3.2. The appellant filed its return