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, 13,75,315/- & Rs. 37,97,84,300/ & Rs. 37,97,84,300/- for the AY 2020-21 and Rs.56,41,82,236/ 21 and Rs.56,41,82,236/- & Rs. 58,23,45,992/-for the AY(s) 2021 for the AY(s) 2021-22 & 2022-23 being the bogus purchases as income of being the bogus purchases

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

3, 13,75,315/- & Rs. 37,97,84,300/ & Rs. 37,97,84,300/- for the AY 2020-21 and Rs.56,41,82,236/ 21 and Rs.56,41,82,236/- & Rs. 58,23,45,992/-for the AY(s) 2021 for the AY(s) 2021-22 & 2022-23 being the bogus purchases as income of being the bogus purchases

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

purchases unjustified on the AO’s part to baldly allege that, all purchases lacking GRN details were bogus. GRN details were bogus. 10. Having considered the above submissions, we Having considered the above submissions, we cannot conclusively cannot conclusively agree with the AO that agree with the AO that, the material seized from the premises of the the material seized

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

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

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

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

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

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

145. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are as under: 1. The Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai is arbitrary and is against to law in so far prejudicial to the interest of the appellant company. 2. Adjudication of disallowance at 20% of alleged bogus purchases as against appellant’s voluntary disallowance

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

145. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are as under: 1. The Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai is arbitrary and is against to law in so far prejudicial to the interest of the appellant company. 2. Adjudication of disallowance at 20% of alleged bogus purchases as against appellant’s voluntary disallowance

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

purchase of solar project : During the search it was found that an c-mail sent by one Shri Narayanswamy Sahadevan to Shri D. Kabilan Executive Director of M/s. VVD & Sons reveals that there was necessarily of fund for purchase of land for VVD's Solar Project. In the e-mail of Shri Narayanasamy Sahadevan (nara1936@Yahoo.com) sent to Shri D Kabilan

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

purchase of solar project : During the search it was found that an c-mail sent by one Shri Narayanswamy Sahadevan to Shri D. Kabilan Executive Director of M/s. VVD & Sons reveals that there was necessarily of fund for purchase of land for VVD's Solar Project. In the e-mail of Shri Narayanasamy Sahadevan (nara1936@Yahoo.com) sent to Shri D Kabilan

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

purchase of solar project : During the search it was found that an c-mail sent by one Shri Narayanswamy Sahadevan to Shri D. Kabilan Executive Director of M/s. VVD & Sons reveals that there was necessarily of fund for purchase of land for VVD's Solar Project. In the e-mail of Shri Narayanasamy Sahadevan (nara1936@Yahoo.com) sent to Shri D Kabilan

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

purchase of solar project : During the search it was found that an c-mail sent by one Shri Narayanswamy Sahadevan to Shri D. Kabilan Executive Director of M/s. VVD & Sons reveals that there was necessarily of fund for purchase of land for VVD's Solar Project. In the e-mail of Shri Narayanasamy Sahadevan (nara1936@Yahoo.com) sent to Shri D Kabilan

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. BALA MURUGAN COMPANY, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

3. Being aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred Being aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred Being aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Having considered the contentions of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Having considered the contentions of the appeal before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. BALA MURUGAN COMPANY, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

3. Being aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred Being aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred Being aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Having considered the contentions of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Having considered the contentions of the appeal before

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

145(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

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

145(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