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

Section 14A & sales promotion expenses made by the AO. Further, in AY 2018 by the AO. Further, in AY 2018-19, the disallowance made by the AO on nce made by the AO on account of deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act was deleted and the account of deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act was deleted

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

Section 14A & sales promotion expenses made by the AO. Further, in AY 2018 by the AO. Further, in AY 2018-19, the disallowance made by the AO on nce made by the AO on account of deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act was deleted and the account of deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act was deleted

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 purchases. Apart from the\n:: 4 ::\nITA Nos.1254, 1255, 1258, 1260/Chny/2025 &\nITA Nos.1233, 1235, 1237, 1238/Chny/2025\n(AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18)\nM/s. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd.\nforegoing, the AO is also noted to have made addition(s)/disallowance(s)\non account of deduction(s) claimed u/s 80G / 80GGB, disallowance u/s\n14A of the Act and disallowance

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

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

bogus purchases. Apart from the gus purchases. Apart from the ITA Nos.1254, 1255, 1258, 1260 1254, 1255, 1258, 1260/Chny/2025 & ITA Nos.1233, 1235, 1237, 1238 1233, 1235, 1237, 1238/Chny/2025 (AYs 2014 s 2014-15 to 2017-18) Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt :: 4 :: foregoing, the AO is also noted to have made addition(s)/disallowance

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

bogus purchases. Apart from the gus purchases. Apart from the ITA Nos.1254, 1255, 1258, 1260 1254, 1255, 1258, 1260/Chny/2025 & ITA Nos.1233, 1235, 1237, 1238 1233, 1235, 1237, 1238/Chny/2025 (AYs 2014 s 2014-15 to 2017-18) Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt :: 4 :: foregoing, the AO is also noted to have made addition(s)/disallowance

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

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

bogus purchases. Apart from the\n:: 3 ::\nITA Nos.1254, 1255, 1258, 1260/Chny/2025 &\nITA Nos.1233, 1235, 1237, 1238/Chny/2025\n(AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18)\nM/s. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd.\nforegoing, the AO is also noted to have made addition(s)/disallowance(s)\non account of deduction(s) claimed u/s 80G / 80GGB, disallowance u/s\n14A of the Act and disallowance

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 purchases. Notices under Section 153C were issued to the assessee for Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2017-18.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 153C were invalid because the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer did not establish a nexus between the seized material and the relevant Assessment Years. The Tribunal found a complete

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 purchases. Apart from the\nforegoing, the AO is also noted to have made addition(s)/disallowance(s)\non account of deduction(s) claimed u/s 80G / 80GGB, disallowance u/s\n14A of the Act and disallowance of certain items of expenses.\n3.\nAggrieved by the above order(s) of the AO, the assessee preferred\nappeal before

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

bogus purchases. Apart from the\n:: 3 ::\nITA Nos.1254, 1255, 1258, 1260/Chny/2025 &\nITA Nos.1233, 1235, 1237, 1238/Chny/2025\n(AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18)\nM/s. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd.\nforegoing, the AO is also noted to have made addition(s)/disallowance(s)\non account of deduction(s) claimed u/s 80G / 80GGB, disallowance u/s\n14A of the Act and disallowance

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

bogus purchases. Apart from the\n:: 3 ::\nITA Nos.1254, 1255, 1258, 1260/Chny/2025 &\nITA Nos.1233, 1235, 1237, 1238/Chny/2025\n(AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18)\nM/s. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd.\nforegoing, the AO is also noted to have made addition(s)/disallowance(s)\non account of deduction(s) claimed u/s 80G / 80GGB, disallowance u/s\n14A of the Act and disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. STANDARD FIREWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED, SIVAKASI, TAMILNADU

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross-Objections\nfiled by the assessee are dismissed

purchase of goods from assessee\nwhich were recorded as sales in assessee's books and which transaction\nhas suffered indirect taxation at the hands of Sales Tax/VAT and that\nassessee has offered Income Tax on it. Thus, the Ld.CIT(A) held that the\nimpugned addition can't be made u/s.68 of the Act because assessee was\nable to prove

SIR CV RAMAN EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

bogus or non-genuine. Likewise, he explained that the erstwhile trustees had raised loans from their known associates/friends to finance the acquisition of land for educational purposes and it was due to lack of financial resources that the loans could not be repaid nor any interest was paid on such loans. The Ld. AR submitted that, the non-repayment

SIR CV RAMAN EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

bogus or non-genuine. Likewise, he explained that the erstwhile trustees had raised loans from their known associates/friends to finance the acquisition of land for educational purposes and it was due to lack of financial resources that the loans could not be repaid nor any interest was paid on such loans. The Ld. AR submitted that, the non-repayment