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

20 :: appellate proceedings, with respect to the process involved in the bottle appellate proceedings, with respect to the process involved in the bottle appellate proceedings, with respect to the process involved in the bottle purchase in the regular course as well as sourced on emergency basi purchase in the regular course as well as sourced on emergency basi purchase

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

20 :: appellate proceedings, with respect to the process involved in the bottle appellate proceedings, with respect to the process involved in the bottle appellate proceedings, with respect to the process involved in the bottle purchase in the regular course as well as sourced on emergency basi purchase in the regular course as well as sourced on emergency basi purchase

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

20 :: appellate proceedings, with respect to the process involved in the bottle appellate proceedings, with respect to the process involved in the bottle appellate proceedings, with respect to the process involved in the bottle purchase in the regular course as well as sourced on emergency basi purchase in the regular course as well as sourced on emergency basi purchase

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

section of SAP.\nd) Based on the clarifications provided by Shri.S.Varatharaj on the\nevidences found, vide his sworn statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the\nAct at the business premises of M/s SAFL, it is gathered that there were\nno purchase orders raised for bogus purchases and as per the direction\nof Shri. Augustine Paulraj, the bogus invoices were directly

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

section of SAP.\nd) Based on the clarifications provided by Shri.S.Varatharaj on the\nevidences found, vide his sworn statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the\nAct at the business premises of M/s SAFL, it is gathered that there were\nno purchase orders raised for bogus purchases and as per the direction\nof Shri. Augustine Paulraj, the bogus invoices were directly

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

section of SAP.\nd) Based on the clarifications provided by Shri.S.Varatharaj on the\nevidences found, vide his sworn statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the\nAct at the business premises of M/s SAFL, it is gathered that there were\nno purchase orders raised for bogus purchases and as per the direction\nof Shri. Augustine Paulraj, the bogus invoices were directly

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

section of SAP.\nd) Based on the clarifications provided by Shri.S.Varatharaj on the\nevidences found, vide his sworn statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the\nAct at the business premises of M/s SAFL, it is gathered that there were\nno purchase orders raised for bogus purchases and as per the direction\nof Shri. Augustine Paulraj, the bogus invoices were directly

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

section of SAP.\n\nd) Based on the clarifications provided by Shri.S.Varatharaj on the\nevidences found, vide his sworn statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the\nAct at the business premises of M/s SAFL, it is gathered that there were\nno purchase orders raised for bogus purchases and as per the direction\nof Shri. Augustine Paulraj, the bogus invoices were

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 69C, and the minor addition of Rs.81,230/-, all of which were made in the assessment order. 77. Simultaneously, the assessee also preferred an appeal, raising a solitary ground that the enhancement of estimated income on the alleged bogus purchases from 12% to 20

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 69C, and the minor addition of Rs.81,230/-, all of which were made in the assessment order. 77. Simultaneously, the assessee also preferred an appeal, raising a solitary ground that the enhancement of estimated income on the alleged bogus purchases from 12% to 20

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

section 69A,\nthe addition of unexplained expenditure of Rs.42,30,000/- under\nsection 69C, and the minor addition of Rs.81,230/-, all of which were\nmade in the assessment order.\n77. Simultaneously, the assessee also preferred an appeal, raising a\nsolitary ground that the enhancement of estimated income on the\nalleged bogus purchases from 12% to 20

ACIT, NUNAGAMBAKKAM vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

section 69A,\nthe addition of unexplained expenditure of Rs.42,30,000/- under\nsection 69C, and the minor addition of Rs.81,230/-, all of which were\nmade in the assessment order.\n77. Simultaneously, the assessee also preferred an appeal, raising a\nsolitary ground that the enhancement of estimated income on the\nalleged bogus purchases from 12% to 20

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

section 69A,\nthe addition of unexplained expenditure of Rs.42,30,000/- under\nsection 69C, and the minor addition of Rs.81,230/-, all of which were\nmade in the assessment order.\n77. Simultaneously, the assessee also preferred an appeal, raising a\nsolitary ground that the enhancement of estimated income on the\nalleged bogus purchases from 12% to 20

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

section 69A,\nthe addition of unexplained expenditure of Rs.42,30,000/- under\nsection 69C, and the minor addition of Rs.81,230/-, all of which were\nmade in the assessment order.\n77. Simultaneously, the assessee also preferred an appeal, raising a\nsolitary ground that the enhancement of estimated income on the\nalleged bogus purchases from 12% to 20

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

20-22 of the assessment order. With these observations, the AO is noted to have quantified the bogus purchases at Rs.2,22,77,459/- out of the total purchases and show caused the assessee as to why it should not be disallowed u/s 37 of the Act. The assessee is noted to have inter alia objected to the veracity

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

20-22 of the assessment order. With these observations, the AO is noted to have quantified the bogus purchases at Rs.2,22,77,459/- out of the total purchases and show caused the assessee as to why it should not be disallowed u/s 37 of the Act. The assessee is noted to have inter alia objected to the veracity

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as\nwell as the Cross-Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/A

bogus for\nbeing non-verifiable. The AO accordingly rejected the book results and\nestimated the income of the assessee at a much higher sum. On appeal,\nthe Hon'ble High Court held that, even if the purchases were not\nverifiable, it was not in dispute that the assessee had indeed carried out\ncivil construction and therefore would have made purchases

V SATHYAMOORTHY&CO,ERODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -, COIMBATORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1024/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. V. Sathyamoorthy & Co. Dcit बनाम/ 41, Patel Road, Central Circle-2 Vs. Near Blood Bank, Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfv-0222-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1547/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Dcit M/S. V. Sathyamoorthy & Co., बनाम/ Central Circle-2 41, Patel Road, Near Blood Bank, Vs. Coimbatore. Erode-638 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfv-0222-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

20, Chennai erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,93,51,199/- being purchases claimed in books of account maintained by the appellant based on excel sheet found at the time of search without assigning proper reasons and justification. 6. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the disputed purchases were genuine and further ought to have appreciated that