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 -:

section 69A is upheld, and the corresponding grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed. 143. In conclusion, the grounds of appeal of the Revenue for A.Y. 2019-20 are dismissed. Assessment Year 2019-20 in ITA No. 1882/CHNY/2025 (Assessee's Appeal) 144. For the same assessment year, the assessee has filed an appeal challenging the action

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

section 69A is upheld, and the corresponding grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed. 143. In conclusion, the grounds of appeal of the Revenue for A.Y. 2019-20 are dismissed. Assessment Year 2019-20 in 144. For the same assessment year, the assessee has filed an appeal challenging the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in enhancing

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

section 69A is upheld, and the corresponding grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed. 143. In conclusion, the grounds of appeal of the Revenue for A.Y. 2019-20 are dismissed. Assessment Year 2019-20 in 144. For the same assessment year, the assessee has filed an appeal challenging the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in enhancing

C.S.GARMENTS,TIRUPPUR vs. DCIT, TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.583/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S C.S. Garments, The Deputy Commissioner Of 42, Karumarampalayam Mannarai, V. Income Tax, Tirupur – 641 607. Circle – 1, Tirupur. Pan : Aacfc 0719 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

150/- is bogus and no such purchases were made as claimed by the assessee. The assessee appears to have claimed before the lower authorities that credit purchases were made from five parties, namely, (i) Bamboo Checking Centre; (ii) R.V.S. Stitching Centre; (iii) Shankar Hand Embroiders; (iv) Silky Shine Fashion; and (v) S.K. Squances. The assessee also claimed that raw material

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

150/- was deleted. Due to exchange fluctuation, the addition made in pursuance of block assessment, was also deleted by the CIT(Appeals) to the extent of `57,96,955/-. According to the Ld. D.R., the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the block assessment is with regard to undisclosed income. The present assessment is under Section

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

150/- was deleted. Due to exchange fluctuation, the addition made in pursuance of block assessment, was also deleted by the CIT(Appeals) to the extent of `57,96,955/-. According to the Ld. D.R., the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the block assessment is with regard to undisclosed income. The present assessment is under Section

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

150/- was deleted. Due to exchange fluctuation, the addition made in pursuance of block assessment, was also deleted by the CIT(Appeals) to the extent of `57,96,955/-. According to the Ld. D.R., the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the block assessment is with regard to undisclosed income. The present assessment is under Section

M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,MADURAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

150/- was deleted. Due to exchange fluctuation, the addition made in pursuance of block assessment, was also deleted by the CIT(Appeals) to the extent of `57,96,955/-. According to the Ld. D.R., the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the block assessment is with regard to undisclosed income. The present assessment is under Section

M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

150/- was deleted. Due to exchange fluctuation, the addition made in pursuance of block assessment, was also deleted by the CIT(Appeals) to the extent of `57,96,955/-. According to the Ld. D.R., the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the block assessment is with regard to undisclosed income. The present assessment is under Section

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

150/- was deleted. Due to exchange fluctuation, the addition made in pursuance of block assessment, was also deleted by the CIT(Appeals) to the extent of `57,96,955/-. According to the Ld. D.R., the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the block assessment is with regard to undisclosed income. The present assessment is under Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2(3), CHENNAI vs. OJASVI MOTOR FINANC P LTD, CHENNAI

The appeals of the revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

purchased share investments were submitted by the assessee and whatever addresses were given such companies could not be found, neither the assessee produced them nor furnished details of correspondence, stating that it did not know them nor has have any control over them to furnish any details. 3.6 The Id.CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2(3), CHENNAI vs. RKKR HOLDINGS P LTD, CHENNAI

The appeals of the revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

purchased share investments were submitted by the assessee and whatever addresses were given such companies could not be found, neither the assessee produced them nor furnished details of correspondence, stating that it did not know them nor has have any control over them to furnish any details. 3.6 The Id.CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2(3), CHENNAI vs. RAI SHARES & SECURITIES P LTD, CHENNAI

The appeals of the revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

purchased share investments were submitted by the assessee and whatever addresses were given such companies could not be found, neither the assessee produced them nor furnished details of correspondence, stating that it did not know them nor has have any control over them to furnish any details. 3.6 The Id.CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2(3), CHENNAI vs. GUGNANI LEASING AND HIRE P LTD, CHENNAI

The appeals of the revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

purchased share investments were submitted by the assessee and whatever addresses were given such companies could not be found, neither the assessee produced them nor furnished details of correspondence, stating that it did not know them nor has have any control over them to furnish any details. 3.6 The Id.CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI vs. RITESH SHARES & SECURITIES P LTD, CHENNAI

The appeals of the revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

purchased share investments were submitted by the assessee and whatever addresses were given such companies could not be found, neither the assessee produced them nor furnished details of correspondence, stating that it did not know them nor has have any control over them to furnish any details. 3.6 The Id.CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2(3), CHENNAI vs. RKKR HOLDINGS P LTD, CHENNAI

The appeals of the revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

purchased share investments were submitted by the assessee and whatever addresses were given such companies could not be found, neither the assessee produced them nor furnished details of correspondence, stating that it did not know them nor has have any control over them to furnish any details. 3.6 The Id.CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR -2(3), CHENNAI vs. CHANDAN CREDITS LTD, CHENNAI

The appeals of the revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

purchased share investments were submitted by the assessee and whatever addresses were given such companies could not be found, neither the assessee produced them nor furnished details of correspondence, stating that it did not know them nor has have any control over them to furnish any details. 3.6 The Id.CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, , CHENNAI vs. RAJIV SHARES & SECURITIES P LTD, CHENNAI

The appeals of the revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

purchased share investments were submitted by the assessee and whatever addresses were given such companies could not be found, neither the assessee produced them nor furnished details of correspondence, stating that it did not know them nor has have any control over them to furnish any details. 3.6 The Id.CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2(3), CHENNAI vs. RAI SHARES & SECURITIES P LTD, CHENNAI

The appeals of the revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

purchased share investments were submitted by the assessee and whatever addresses were given such companies could not be found, neither the assessee produced them nor furnished details of correspondence, stating that it did not know them nor has have any control over them to furnish any details. 3.6 The Id.CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the assessee