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

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

Section 145(3).\n6.2.30 The jurisdictional tribunal vide its order in ITA No\n366/Chny/2023 dated 09.08.2023 has upheld the decision of the\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in rejecting the books of accounts\nin the case of M/s. Beach Mineraals Company. The ratio of the above\njudgments are squarely applicable to the facts of the Appellant's case

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 145(3).\n6.2.30 The jurisdictional tribunal vide its order in ITA No\n366/Chny/2023 dated 09.08.2023 has upheld the decision of the\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in rejecting the books of accounts\nin the case of M/s. Beach Mineraals Company. The ratio of the above\njudgments are squarely applicable to the facts of the Appellant's case

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 145(3).\n6.2.30 The jurisdictional tribunal vide its order in ITA No\n366/Chny/2023 dated 09.08.2023 has upheld the decision of the\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in rejecting the books of accounts\nin the case of M/s. Beach Mineraals Company. The ratio of the above\njudgments are squarely applicable to the facts of the Appellant's case

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 145(3).\n6.2.30 The jurisdictional tribunal vide its order in ITA No\n366/Chny/2023 dated 09.08.2023 has upheld the decision of the\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in rejecting the books of accounts\nin the case of M/s. Beach Mineraals Company. The ratio of the above\njudgments are squarely applicable to the facts of the Appellant's case

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 145(3).\n\n6.2.30 The jurisdictional tribunal vide its order in ITA No\n366/Chny/2023 dated 09.08.2023 has upheld the decision of the\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in rejecting the books of accounts\nin the case of M/s. Beach Mineraals Company. The ratio of the above\njudgments are squarely applicable to the facts of the Appellant's case

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

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

6 The Ld. LD.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition\nmade on account of disallowances for Expenses without taking into\nconsideration the fact that the expenses per se were bogus in\nnature.\n125. The detailed discussion above regarding inflated transportation\nexpenses is equally applicable to the purchases identified by the AO\nas bogus. While the AO sought

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

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

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

M/S ENRICE ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

purchase invoices available with department prove genuineness of expenditure is incorrect. 7.3.5 Similarly appellant mentioned that there is no finding in the assessment order that there have, been false entries in the books of account, hence 270A (9) (d) is not attracted as has been mentioned by AO, Examination of assessment order shows that vide para 3 of assessment order

M/S ENRIA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

purchase invoices available with department prove genuineness of expenditure is incorrect. 7.3.5 Similarly appellant mentioned that there is no finding in the assessment order that there have, been false entries in the books of account, hence 270A (9) (d) is not attracted as has been mentioned by AO, Examination of assessment order shows that vide para 3 of assessment order