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

73,297/-, Rs 94,94,33,711/- respectively, after making the\nfollowing addition(s)/disallowance(s).\n(in Rs.)\nSI\nNo\nParticulars\n2020-21\n2021-22\n2022-23\n1\nAddition on a/c of old bottle purchases\n41,11,59,615\n56,41,82,236\n58,23,45,992\n2\nDisallowance of data center expenses

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

73,297/-, Rs 94,94,33,711/- respectively, after making the\nfollowing addition(s)/disallowance(s).\n(in Rs.)\nSI\nNo\nParticulars\n2020-21\n2021-22\n2022-23\n1\nAddition on a/c of old bottle purchases\n41,11,59,615 | 56,41,82,236 | 58,23,45,992\n2\nDisallowance of data center expenses

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

73,297/-, Rs 94,94,33,711/- respectively, after making the\nfollowing addition(s)/disallowance(s).\n(in Rs.)\nSl\nNo\nParticulars\n2020-21\n2021-22\n2022-23\n1\nAddition on a/c of old bottle purchases\n41,11,59,615\n56,41,82,236\n58,23,45,992\n2\nDisallowance of data center expenses

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

73,297/-, Rs 94,94,33,711/- respectively, after making the\nfollowing addition(s)/disallowance(s).\n\n(in Rs.)\nSI\nNo\nParticulars\n2020-21\n2021-22\n2022-23\n1\nAddition on a/c of old bottle purchases\n41,11,59,615\n56,41,82,236\n58,23,45,992\n2\nDisallowance of data center expenses

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, wherein payments made to vendors were rerouted and subsequently expended for business purposes after receipt of cash. Relying on settled judicial principles that only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be brought to tax, the ld. CIT(A) agreed with the assessee on the applicability of estimation but found the rate of 12% adopted

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, wherein payments made to vendors were rerouted and subsequently expended for business purposes after receipt of cash. Relying on settled judicial principles that only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be brought to tax, the ld. CIT(A) agreed with the assessee on the applicability of estimation but found the rate of 12% adopted

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2150, 2151 & 2152/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 16.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days, For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection.

bogus bought notes could have little relevance in this matter. 5. The learned CIT(A) has deleted the addition on the ground that the payment for purchase made through RTGS and the AO has not proved the cash payment by the assessee and also purchase of copra was not refuted. It is further opined that there is no incriminating seized

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2150, 2151 & 2152/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 16.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days, For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection.

bogus bought notes could have little relevance in this matter. 5. The learned CIT(A) has deleted the addition on the ground that the payment for purchase made through RTGS and the AO has not proved the cash payment by the assessee and also purchase of copra was not refuted. It is further opined that there is no incriminating seized

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2150, 2151 & 2152/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 16.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days, For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection.

bogus bought notes could have little relevance in this matter. 5. The learned CIT(A) has deleted the addition on the ground that the payment for purchase made through RTGS and the AO has not proved the cash payment by the assessee and also purchase of copra was not refuted. It is further opined that there is no incriminating seized

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

M/S. PREMIER MARINE PRODUCTS,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1461/Mds/2012 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-2009

73,960 1,57,93,664 Though the assessee relied on Rule 6DD(e) of Income Tax Rules,1962, the ld. Assessing Officer was of the opinion that fishermen could not be equated to the cultivator or grower or producer of the type of article or product mentioned in the said rule. The ld. Assessing Officer also noticed that fishermen

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. M/S. PREMIER MARINE PRODUCTS,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1461/Mds/2012 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-2009

73,960 1,57,93,664 Though the assessee relied on Rule 6DD(e) of Income Tax Rules,1962, the ld. Assessing Officer was of the opinion that fishermen could not be equated to the cultivator or grower or producer of the type of article or product mentioned in the said rule. The ld. Assessing Officer also noticed that fishermen

RASI SEEDS (P) LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

bogus purchases and hence, confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no. 1 to 4 of the assessee appeal is validity of reopening of assessment u/s.147 and consequent reassessment proceedings. The learned

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. CARAT LANE TRADING PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 213/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Carat Lane Trading Pvt. Ltd., No. 32, Rutland Gate 2Nd Street, Corporate Circle -1(2), Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Khader Nawaz Khan Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aadcc 1791Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

bogus purchase and disallowed Rs. 7,10,666/- & Rs. 73,244/-, PF & ESI payments, respectively, remitted beyond the due date. Aggrieved, theassessee filed an appeal before the CIT (A) and the CIT(A) allowed the appeal . Against the order of the CIT(A) , the Revenue filed this appeal. 3. The DR assailed the order

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

bogus purchases and unexplained investment in property. The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the facts can be taken from the case of Shri 16 I.T.A. Nos.2357 to 2363, 2389 to 2402 & 2587 to 2598/Chny/2019 & 429 to 446/Chny/2020 Shanthilal D Jain for the assessment year 2007-08 in ITA No.2357/Chny/2019 and issue can be decided. 5. The first issue

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

bogus purchases and unexplained investment in property. The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the facts can be taken from the case of Shri 16 I.T.A. Nos.2357 to 2363, 2389 to 2402 & 2587 to 2598/Chny/2019 & 429 to 446/Chny/2020 Shanthilal D Jain for the assessment year 2007-08 in ITA No.2357/Chny/2019 and issue can be decided. 5. The first issue

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

bogus purchases and unexplained investment in property. The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the facts can be taken from the case of Shri 16 I.T.A. Nos.2357 to 2363, 2389 to 2402 & 2587 to 2598/Chny/2019 & 429 to 446/Chny/2020 Shanthilal D Jain for the assessment year 2007-08 in ITA No.2357/Chny/2019 and issue can be decided. 5. The first issue

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

bogus purchases and unexplained investment in property. The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the facts can be taken from the case of Shri 16 I.T.A. Nos.2357 to 2363, 2389 to 2402 & 2587 to 2598/Chny/2019 & 429 to 446/Chny/2020 Shanthilal D Jain for the assessment year 2007-08 in ITA No.2357/Chny/2019 and issue can be decided. 5. The first issue