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

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

bogus purchases over ten years was not sustainable without further evidence. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the books of account should be rejected and profits estimated. The Tribunal estimated the profit at 10% of the turnover.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "139", "153C", "132", "143(2)", "143(3)", "145(3)", "271AAD", "144", "29", "30", "43D", "68", "69", "69C

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

bogus old\nbottle purchases. (In\nRs.)\nAmount sustained\nas per the\ndiscussions\n(in Rs.)\nAmount to be\ndeleted\n(in Rs.)\n1\n2020-21\nRs.41,11,59,615\nRs.11,43,16,602/-\nRs.29,68,43,013/-\n(Rs.37,97,84,300 /-\n+\nRs.3,13,75,315/-)\n2\n2021-22\nRs.56,41,82,236/-\nRs.10,65,46,645/-\nRs.45

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 purchases: Rs.4,43,24,430/-\nc. Unexplained money under section 69A: Rs.39,22,000/- on account of\namounts received from Shri B.S. Prasad\nd. Unexplained expenditure under section 69C

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 purchases: Rs.4,43,24,430/-\nc. Unexplained money under section 69A: Rs.39,22,000/- on account of\namounts received from Shri B.S. Prasad\nd. Unexplained expenditure under section 69C

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

bogus purchases: Rs.4,43,24,430/-\nc. Unexplained money under section 69A: Rs.39,22,000/- on account of\namounts received from Shri B.S. Prasad\nd. Unexplained expenditure under section 69C

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 purchases: Rs.4,43,24,430/-\nc. Unexplained money under section 69A: Rs.39,22,000/- on account of\namounts received from Shri B.S. Prasad\nd. Unexplained expenditure under section 69C

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

bogus purchases. The Ld. AR submitted that decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Kanak (Impex) Ltd. (supra) referred by the Ld. DR has no application as the said judgment was rendered in the context of applicability of Section 69C

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

bogus purchases. The Ld. AR submitted that decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Kanak (Impex) Ltd. (supra) referred by the Ld. DR has no application as the said judgment was rendered in the context of applicability of Section 69C

INCOME TAX OFFICER CORPORATE WARD-2(1), CHENNAI vs. MS. GCKC PROJECTS AND WORKS PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1267/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17

bogus purchases under section 69C of the Act and the same was challenged before the ld. CIT(A). We note

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. JAYARAJ JAISON, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2512/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Jayaraj Jaison, Income Tax, Vs. No.9/10, Prop: Jaison Bkery, Central Circle -2, Madurai. Kavalkinaru, Tirunelveli – 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) [Pan:Akgpj-2821-E] (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman,C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 30.07.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai (‘Ld.Cit(A)’ In Short), Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 30.09.2022 Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Madurai (‘Ao’ In Short), For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’ In Short) 2020-21. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

69C of the Act. When the assessee has admitted the expenditure as income in return of income filed there exists no case for the AO to tax the same amount once again as unexplained investment / expense. The AO attempted to tax the same income twice. As per the legal maxim for the principle that the same income or amount should

ARIHANT RETAIL PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-1,, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1308/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Arihant Retail Private Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 29, Namachivaya Chetty Street, V. Income Tax -1, Old Washermanpet, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 021. [Pan: Aaics-3648-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

bogus, and it had been stated that the entire amount of Rs.102,43,73,377/- could not be disallowed, hence to protect the interest of revenue, a moderate disallowance of business purchases the extent of 10% i.e., Rs.10,24,37,338/- was treated as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the I.T. Act. 3.2 As per Section

V SATHYAMOORTHY&CO,ERODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, COIMBATORE

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1023/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) 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) 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 : 09-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 69C of the Act was not satisfied in the present case thereby vitiating the disputed addition. 21. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that the excel sheet relied upon by the Assessing Officer should not be construed as 'incriminating seized material' and further ought to have appreciated that the contents of the seized material reflecting the actual

D.RAMGOPAL,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 583 /Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Shri. D. Ramagopal, V. Tax, 14-A, 10Th Street, Central Circle -1, Ganapathypudur, Coimbatore. Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 006. [Pan: Akgpr-3621-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 584/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Principal Commissioner Of Shri. D. Ramagopal, V. Income Tax, 14-A, 10Th Street, Central Circle -2, Ganapathypudur, Chennai. Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 006. [Pan: Akgpr-3621-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. G.V. Jhabakh, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

bogus. 4. The assessee had sold the property at Coonoor and offered Capital Gain at Rs.85,069/- and later claiming a loss at Rs.6,644/- by filing a revised computation of capital gain. The expenses claimed for building renovation, cleaning was not allowed by the assessing officer. The written submissions along with documentary evidence in the paper book filed before

D.RAMGOPAL,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 583 /Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Shri. D. Ramagopal, V. Tax, 14-A, 10Th Street, Central Circle -1, Ganapathypudur, Coimbatore. Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 006. [Pan: Akgpr-3621-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 584/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Principal Commissioner Of Shri. D. Ramagopal, V. Income Tax, 14-A, 10Th Street, Central Circle -2, Ganapathypudur, Chennai. Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 006. [Pan: Akgpr-3621-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. G.V. Jhabakh, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

bogus. 4. The assessee had sold the property at Coonoor and offered Capital Gain at Rs.85,069/- and later claiming a loss at Rs.6,644/- by filing a revised computation of capital gain. The expenses claimed for building renovation, cleaning was not allowed by the assessing officer. The written submissions along with documentary evidence in the paper book filed before

SUNDARAM SANKAR ANAND,KARUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed of as below:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2850,2851,2852 & 2853/Chny/2024, 2910, 2911 & 2912/Chny/2024 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sundaram Sankar Anand, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.63-B-7, Mayanur, Vs Income Tax, M Kaspa Sandai Peatai, . Central Circle – 2, Coimbatore. Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur – 639 102 [Pan:Bvips-1149-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Alagappa, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. M.Murali, Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

purchases are noting but expenditure. If sundry creditors are not proved by the assessee, addition can made by the assessing officer by resorting to section 68 rws 69C. Similar view has been expressed by Honourable Karnataka High Court in Shri Suresh Kumar. T. Jain Vs ITO, ITA No.160 of 201. In this case books of accounts were not found during