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

8) regular suppliers including M/s Crystal Bottles who were inter alia providing these bogus rystal Bottles who were inter alia providing these bogus rystal Bottles who were inter alia providing these bogus ITA Nos.1613 to 1615 1613 to 1615 /Chny/2025 & ITA Nos.1547 & 1548/Chny/2025 ITA Nos.1547 & 1548/Chny/2025 (AYs 2018 s 2018-19 & 2019-20) Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Southern

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

8) regular suppliers including M/s Crystal Bottles who were inter alia providing these bogus rystal Bottles who were inter alia providing these bogus rystal Bottles who were inter alia providing these bogus ITA Nos.1613 to 1615 1613 to 1615 /Chny/2025 & ITA Nos.1547 & 1548/Chny/2025 ITA Nos.1547 & 1548/Chny/2025 (AYs 2018 s 2018-19 & 2019-20) Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Southern

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

8) regular suppliers including M/s Crystal Bottles who were inter alia providing these bogus rystal Bottles who were inter alia providing these bogus rystal Bottles who were inter alia providing these bogus ITA Nos.1613 to 1615 1613 to 1615 /Chny/2025 & ITA Nos.1547 & 1548/Chny/2025 ITA Nos.1547 & 1548/Chny/2025 (AYs 2018 s 2018-19 & 2019-20) Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Southern

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

8% was made only in the revised statement of income and therefore could not be considered. 44. Regarding the alleged bogus purchases involving Zaheer Abbas and Sreedhar, the AO observed that these invoices were not supported by corresponding transportation bills and therefore treated them as bogus, unlike genuine purchases where transport bills were available. The assessee’s claim that rerouted

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

8% was made only in the revised statement of income and therefore could not be considered. 44. Regarding the alleged bogus purchases involving Zaheer Abbas and Sreedhar, the AO observed that these invoices were not supported by corresponding transportation bills and therefore treated them as bogus, unlike genuine purchases where transport bills were available. The assessee’s claim that rerouted

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

8% was\nmade only in the revised statement of income and therefore could not\nbe considered.\n44. Regarding the alleged bogus purchases involving Zaheer Abbas\nand Sreedhar, the AO observed that these invoices were not\nsupported by corresponding transportation bills and therefore treated\nthem as bogus, unlike genuine purchases where transport bills were\navailable. The assessee's claim that rerouted

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

8% was\nmade only in the revised statement of income and therefore could not\nbe considered.\n44. Regarding the alleged bogus purchases involving Zaheer Abbas\nand Sreedhar, the AO observed that these invoices were not\nsupported by corresponding transportation bills and therefore treated\nthem as bogus, unlike genuine purchases where transport bills were\navailable. The assessee's claim that rerouted

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

8% was\nmade only in the revised statement of income and therefore could not\nbe considered.\n44. Regarding the alleged bogus purchases involving Zaheer Abbas\nand Sreedhar, the AO observed that these invoices were not\nsupported by corresponding transportation bills and therefore treated\nthem as bogus, unlike genuine purchases where transport bills were\navailable. The assessee's claim that rerouted

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

8% was\nmade only in the revised statement of income and therefore could not\nbe considered.\n44. Regarding the alleged bogus purchases involving Zaheer Abbas\nand Sreedhar, the AO observed that these invoices were not\nsupported by corresponding transportation bills and therefore treated\nthem as bogus, unlike genuine purchases where transport bills were\navailable. The assessee's claim that rerouted

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 of the Act which deals with nature and source of payment of expenditure, whereas

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 of the Act which deals with nature and source of payment of expenditure, whereas

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

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)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/

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