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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘). 2. Before we advert to the grounds t Before we advert to the grounds taken in these appeals, it would aken in these appeals, it would first be relevant to cull out the basic facts o first be relevant

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘). 2. Before we advert to the grounds t Before we advert to the grounds taken in these appeals, it would aken in these appeals, it would first be relevant to cull out the basic facts o first be relevant

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘). 2. Before we advert to the grounds t Before we advert to the grounds taken in these appeals, it would aken in these appeals, it would first be relevant to cull out the basic facts o first be relevant

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

bogus purchases as against appellant’s voluntary disallowance of 12% in ROI u/s 148. 3.1 On facts and under the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai erred in adjudicating the disallowances at 20% of the alleged bogus purchases, which is over and above the disallowances of 12% on alleged bogus purchases voluntarily returned

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

bogus purchases as against appellant’s voluntary disallowance of 12% in ROI u/s 148. 3.1 On facts and under the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai erred in adjudicating the disallowances at 20% of the alleged bogus purchases, which is over and above the disallowances of 12% on alleged bogus purchases voluntarily returned

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

4) of I.T. Act, 1961 was recorded\nfrom Shri.Manuel Gnana Muthu Anand, MD, M/s SAFL, wherein he had\ncategorically accepted that M/s SAFL had booked bogus old bottle\npurchases against payment through banking channel and received back\nthe amount corresponding to bogus bills, in cash. Further, after\nconfirming the depositions made by Shri. S Varatharaj, Shri. Augustine\nPaulraj and Shri

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

4) of I.T. Act, 1961 was recorded\nfrom Shri.Manuel Gnana Muthu Anand, MD, M/s SAFL, wherein he had\ncategorically accepted that M/s SAFL had booked bogus old bottle\npurchases against payment through banking channel and received back\nthe amount corresponding to bogus bills, in cash. Further, after\nconfirming the depositions made by Shri. S Varatharaj, Shri. Augustine\nPaulraj and Shri

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

4) of I.T. Act, 1961 was recorded\nfrom Shri.Manuel Gnana Muthu Anand, MD, M/s SAFL, wherein he had\ncategorically accepted that M/s SAFL had booked bogus old bottle\npurchases against payment through banking channel and received back\nthe amount corresponding to bogus bills, in cash. Further, after\nconfirming the depositions made by Shri. S Varatharaj, Shri. Augustine\nPaulraj and Shri

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

4) of I.T. Act, 1961 was recorded\nfrom Shri.Manuel Gnana Muthu Anand, MD, M/s SAFL, wherein he had\ncategorically accepted that M/s SAFL had booked bogus old bottle\npurchases against payment through banking channel and received back\nthe amount corresponding to bogus bills, in cash. Further, after\nconfirming the depositions made by Shri. S Varatharaj, Shri. Augustine\nPaulraj and Shri

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

4) of I.T. Act, 1961 was recorded\nfrom Shri.Manuel Gnana Muthu Anand, MD, M/s SAFL, wherein he had\ncategorically accepted that M/s SAFL had booked bogus old bottle\npurchases against payment through banking channel and received back\nthe amount corresponding to bogus bills, in cash. Further, after\nconfirming the depositions made by Shri. S Varatharaj, Shri. Augustine\nPaulraj and Shri

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

bogus expenditure.\nThe income already disclosed in the return under section 148 of Rs.\n53,25,720/- was considered, and the remaining balance of Rs.\n3,89,98,710/- was brought to tax under section 37(1).\n45. The seized Excel sheet also reflected a cash transaction of Rs.\n39,22,000/- in the name of Shri B. Sivaprasad

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, 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

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, INCOME TAX OFFICE, TRICHY vs. RAMASAMY SIVAPRAKASAM, KARUR

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘). 2. Since the issues involved in both these appeals are common, they were heard together. Both the parties also argued them together raising ITA Nos.1266 & 1267/Chny/2025 (AYs 2014-15 & 2016-17) Ramasamy Sivaprakasam :: 2 :: similar arguments on these issues. Accordingly, for the sake of convenience and brevity

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘). 2. Since the issues involved in both these appeals are common, they were heard together. Both the parties also argued them together raising ITA Nos.1266 & 1267/Chny/2025 (AYs 2014-15 & 2016-17) Ramasamy Sivaprakasam :: 2 :: similar arguments on these issues. Accordingly, for the sake of convenience and brevity

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 :

250 / 2024-25 / Chny / 2025 8 2016-17 1074109206(1) dated 06.03.2025 2.0 All the above appeals including Cross appeals are centering around common issues and hence for the purposes of convenience were heard and are being adjudicated together by this common order. For the purposes of this adjudication the facts and figures for AY-2013-14 have been taken

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 :

250 / 2024-25 / Chny / 2025 8 2016-17 1074109206(1) dated 06.03.2025 2.0 All the above appeals including Cross appeals are centering around common issues and hence for the purposes of convenience were heard and are being adjudicated together by this common order. For the purposes of this adjudication the facts and figures for AY-2013-14 have been taken