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

143(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

143(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

143(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

sections": [ "139", "143(2)", "143(3)", "153C", "132", "145(3)", "144", "271AAD", "145(3)", "68", "69", "69C", "145(3)", "145(3)" ], "issues": "Whether the AO was justified in alleging bogus purchases

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

sections": [ "139", "153C", "132", "143(2)", "143(3)", "145(3)", "271AAD", "145", "144", "30", "43D", "29", "68", "69", "69C" ], "issues": "Whether the additions made by the AO towards alleged bogus purchases

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

sections": [ "139", "153C", "132", "143(2)", "143(3)", "145(3)", "271AAD", "144", "145", "40A(3)", "68", "69C", "29", "30", "43D" ], "issues": "Whether the addition made by the AO for bogus purchases

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

sections": [ "139", "153C", "132", "143(2)", "143(3)", "145(3)", "271AAD", "144", "145(3)", "250", "145(3)", "40A(3)", "145(3)", "40A(3)", "145(3)", "145(3)", "145(3)" ], "issues": "Whether the AO was justified in adding the entire value of alleged bogus old bottle purchases

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

sections": [ "139", "153C", "132", "143(2)", "143(3)", "145(3)", "271AAD", "144", "29", "30", "43D", "68", "69", "69C", "40A(3)" ], "issues": "Whether the AO was justified in treating all purchases of old bottles lacking GRN details as bogus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. RAMASUBBU MINNALKODI, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

purchasers,\nShri Isakkiraja, who confirmed that the assessee was resorting to under-\ninvoicing of sales. Furthermore, the turnover of Rs.6,64,76,379/- had been\ncomputed in the presence of the assessee, based on the noting made by her,\nand not on any estimate prepared by the Department independently. The AO\n:-5-:\nITA. No: 1632/Chny/2025\nobserved that the assessee

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

143(2). The assessment orders were passed on 30.03.2024, with details as under: Returned Income Revised / Returned AY Assessed Income u/s 139(1) Income 2016–17 Rs.1,75,96,950/- Rs.4,12,56,380/- Rs.15,80,88,793/- 2019–20 Rs.21,72,390/- Rs.2,83,13,380/- Rs.10,57,47,420/- 2022–23 Rs.22,77,52,561/- — Rs.26

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

143(2). The assessment orders were passed on 30.03.2024, with details as under: Returned Income Revised / Returned AY Assessed Income u/s 139(1) Income 2016–17 Rs.1,75,96,950/- Rs.4,12,56,380/- Rs.15,80,88,793/- 2019–20 Rs.21,72,390/- Rs.2,83,13,380/- Rs.10,57,47,420/- 2022–23 Rs.22,77,52,561/- — Rs.26

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

143(2) respectively on 30.03.2024,\nthe details of which are tabulated hereunder:\nΑ.Υ.\nReturned Income\nAssessed Income\nu/S 139(1)\n2016-17\n1,75,96,950\n4,12,56,380\n15,80,88,793\n2019-20\n21,72,390\n2,83,13,380\n10,57,47,420\n2022-23\n22,77,52,561\n26,56,58,571\n3.5

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

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

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 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 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