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

bogus purchases was made by relying on the material seized and statement(s) recorded in was made by relying on the material seized and statement(s) recorded in was made by relying on the material seized and statement(s) recorded in the direct search conducted at the premises of the onducted at the premises of the assessee, which was assessee

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

bogus purchases was made by relying on the material seized and statement(s) recorded in was made by relying on the material seized and statement(s) recorded in was made by relying on the material seized and statement(s) recorded in the direct search conducted at the premises of the onducted at the premises of the assessee, which was assessee

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

bogus purchases was made by relying on the material seized and statement(s) recorded in was made by relying on the material seized and statement(s) recorded in was made by relying on the material seized and statement(s) recorded in the direct search conducted at the premises of the onducted at the premises of the assessee, which was assessee

M/S ENRICE ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

undisclosed income provided in Section 271AAB, being penal provision and that the same is required to be strictly construed in light of satisfaction of conditions specified therein. 10. The learned CIT(A) ought to have seen that appellant has admitted a consolidated sum of Rs. 113.99 Crores over the Financial Years and accordingly allocated the admitted sum over a period

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 to the tune of Rs.390,72,59,061/- from FY\n2012-13 to FY 2022-23 and offered the undisclosed income

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 to the tune of Rs.390,72,59,061/- from FY\n2012-13 to FY 2022-23 and offered the undisclosed income

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 to the tune of Rs.390,72,59,061/- from FY\n2012-13 to FY 2022-23 and offered the undisclosed income

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 to the tune of Rs.390,72,59,061/- from FY\n2012-13 to FY 2022-23 and offered the undisclosed income

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 to the tune of Rs.390,72,59,061/- from FY\n2012-13 to FY 2022-23 and offered the undisclosed income

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

undisclosed income of port handling charges- *this amount was admitted in revised statement of total income Disallowance u/S 37(1) - 53,25,720 3,89,98,710 4,43,24,430 Bogus purchases

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

undisclosed income of port handling charges- *this amount was admitted in revised statement of total income Disallowance u/S 37(1) - 53,25,720 3,89,98,710 4,43,24,430 Bogus purchases

M.KIRAN KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

bogus long term capital gain. 6. The ld.CIT(A), however was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee and according to him, the reasons given by the AO for making additions towards undisclosed income was supported by statement recorded during the course of search, where the assessee has admitted/ surrendered undisclosed income for failure to offer explanation regarding various

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Bogus purchase as stated by you, I request you to provide me 15 days time to reconcile the same.” request you to provide me 15 days time to reconcile the same.” request you to provide me 15 days time to reconcile the same.” 4.6 In light of the above seized electronic material, depositions of the In light of the above

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

purchases from 12% to 20% by the Id. CIT(A) was\nwithout any rational basis. Accordingly, the assessee sought deletion\nof the resultant addition of Rs.35,39,166/-.\n78. Aggrieved by the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Revenue\nraised nine grounds of appeal. Ground Nos.1 and 9 were general in\nnature and did not call

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

purchases from 12% to 20% by the Id. CIT(A) was\nwithout any rational basis. Accordingly, the assessee sought deletion\nof the resultant addition of Rs.35,39,166/-.\n:- 37 -:\nITA Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025\nITA Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025\nIntegrated Service Point Ltd.\n78. Aggrieved by the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Revenue\nraised nine grounds of appeal

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

purchases from 12% to 20% by the Id. CIT(A) was\nwithout any rational basis. Accordingly, the assessee sought deletion\nof the resultant addition of Rs.35,39,166/-.\n:- 37 -:\nITA Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025\nITA Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025\nIntegrated Service Point Ltd.\n78. Aggrieved by the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Revenue\nraised nine grounds of appeal

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

purchases from 12% to 20% by the Id. CIT(A) was\nwithout any rational basis. Accordingly, the assessee sought deletion\nof the resultant addition of Rs.35,39,166/-.\n- : 38 -:\nITA Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025\nITA Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025\nIntegrated Service Point Ltd.\n78. Aggrieved by the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Revenue\nraised nine grounds of appeal

RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

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 purchase as stated by you, I\nrequest you to provide me 15 days time to reconcile the same.\"\n\n4.6 In light of the above seized electronic material, depositions of the\nemployees, CFO, CEO & the Managing Director, the AO is noted to have\nreopened the income-tax assessments of the assessee by issue of notices\nu/s