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

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1817 To 1819/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2020-21 To 2022-23 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1550 To 1552/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2020-21 To 2022-23 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025 ::2 ::

section of SAP. d) Based on the clarifications provided by Shri.S.Varatharaj on the evidences found, vide his sworn statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act at the business premises of M/s SAFL, it is gathered that there were no purchase orders raised for bogus purchases and as per the direction of 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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1817 To 1819/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2020-21 To 2022-23

section of SAP. d) Based on the clarifications provided by Shri.S.Varatharaj on the evidences found, vide his sworn statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act at the business premises of M/s SAFL, it is gathered that there were no purchase orders raised for bogus purchases and as per the direction of Shri. Augustine Paulraj, the bogus invoices were directly

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1817 To 1819/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2020-21 To 2022-23 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1550 To 1552/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2020-21 To 2022-23 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025 ::2 ::

section of SAP. d) Based on the clarifications provided by Shri.S.Varatharaj on the evidences found, vide his sworn statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act at the business premises of M/s SAFL, it is gathered that there were no purchase orders raised for bogus purchases and as per the direction of 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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1817 To 1819/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2020-21 To 2022-23 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1550 To 1552/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2020-21 To 2022-23 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025 ::2 ::

section of SAP. d) Based on the clarifications provided by Shri.S.Varatharaj on the evidences found, vide his sworn statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act at the business premises of M/s SAFL, it is gathered that there were no purchase orders raised for bogus purchases and as per the direction of Shri. Augustine Paulraj, the bogus invoices were directly

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 घोषण की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 :- 2 -:

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

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Central Circle-2(4), 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Integrated Service Point Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 30.12.2025 - : 2 -:

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

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

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

INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Central Circle-2(4), 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Chennai. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 घोषण की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 :- 2 -:

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, CC-2(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Pvt. Ltd.,) Vs. 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषण की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 : 30.12.2025 :- 2 -:

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

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1024/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2020-21) 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) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1547/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Dcit M/S. V. Sathyamoorthy & Co., बनाम/ Central Circle-2 41, Patel Road, Near Blood Bank, Vs. Coimbatore. Erode-638 001. "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 : 17-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

bogus purchases is wholly unjustified and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 8. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Appellant had suo-moto disallowed the purchases pertaining to the seized excel sheet with respect to parties from whom money were received back in its return of income filed in response to the notice issued u/s 153A

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 :

8 - of 18 ITA Nos.1692, 1693, 1694 & 1695/Chny/2025 & CO Nos.77, 78, 79 & 80/Chny/2025 Page - 9 - of 18 ITA Nos.1692, 1693, 1694 & 1695/Chny/2025 & CO Nos.77, 78, 79 & 80/Chny/2025 8.0 Similarly, the assessee has contested the order of Ld.CIT(A) qua appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.1692/Chny/2025, through its CO No.77/Chny/2025 raising following grounds of appeal for AY-2013-14. “….MEMORANDUM

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 :

8 - of 18 ITA Nos.1692, 1693, 1694 & 1695/Chny/2025 & CO Nos.77, 78, 79 & 80/Chny/2025 Page - 9 - of 18 ITA Nos.1692, 1693, 1694 & 1695/Chny/2025 & CO Nos.77, 78, 79 & 80/Chny/2025 8.0 Similarly, the assessee has contested the order of Ld.CIT(A) qua appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.1692/Chny/2025, through its CO No.77/Chny/2025 raising following grounds of appeal for AY-2013-14. “….MEMORANDUM