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

disallowance at 20% of alleged bogus purchases as against appellant’s voluntary disallowance of 12% in ROI u/s 148. 3.1 On facts and under the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai erred in adjudicating the disallowances at 20% of the alleged bogus purchases, which is over and above the disallowances

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

disallowance at 20% of alleged bogus purchases as against appellant’s voluntary disallowance of 12% in ROI u/s 148. 3.1 On facts and under the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai erred in adjudicating the disallowances at 20% of the alleged bogus purchases, which is over and above the disallowances

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 -:

172 taxmann.com 283 (Bombay) where it has been held Assessing Officer was justified in making addition of entire amount of bogus purchases & held in favour of revenue. 6. The Ld. LD.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of disallowances for Expenses without taking into consideration the fact that the expenses per se were bogus in nature

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 -:

172 taxmann.com 283 (Bombay) where it has been held Assessing Officer was justified in making addition of entire amount of bogus purchases & held in favour of revenue. 6. The Ld. LD.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of disallowances for Expenses without taking into consideration the fact that the expenses per se were bogus in nature

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19

disallowed the entire claim of the assessee made certain additions. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, against which the Revenue is in further appeals before us. 5. In regard to ground nos.2 to 4.2 for the AY 2018-19 raised by the Revenue, the learned

C.E.S.ONYX PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.565, 566, 567 & 568/Chny/2020 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 Ces Onyx Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 46-B, Iv Floor, Krishnan Complex, Vs. Income Tax, South Boag Road, T. Nagar, Company Circle-1(3), Chennai – 600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Aabcc 1396D]

172 (Ahmedabad–Trib.) that the assessee is a work contractor and not eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act. 9. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The only issue to adjudicate is whether the assessee-company is eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act as enterprise carrying

C.E.S.ONYX PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.565, 566, 567 & 568/Chny/2020 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 Ces Onyx Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 46-B, Iv Floor, Krishnan Complex, Vs. Income Tax, South Boag Road, T. Nagar, Company Circle-1(3), Chennai – 600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Aabcc 1396D]

172 (Ahmedabad–Trib.) that the assessee is a work contractor and not eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act. 9. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The only issue to adjudicate is whether the assessee-company is eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act as enterprise carrying

C.E.S.ONYX PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.565, 566, 567 & 568/Chny/2020 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 Ces Onyx Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 46-B, Iv Floor, Krishnan Complex, Vs. Income Tax, South Boag Road, T. Nagar, Company Circle-1(3), Chennai – 600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Aabcc 1396D]

172 (Ahmedabad–Trib.) that the assessee is a work contractor and not eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act. 9. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The only issue to adjudicate is whether the assessee-company is eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act as enterprise carrying

C.E.S.ONYX PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.565, 566, 567 & 568/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 Ces Onyx Pvt. Ltd., 46-B, Iv Floor, Krishnan Complex, South Boag Road, T. Nagar, Chennai - 600 017. [Pan: Aabcc 1396D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Company Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri G. Baskar, Shri I. Dinesh & Shri A.Sathaseelan, Advocates Shri P. Krishna Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2024 04.12.2024 Per Jagadish, A.M : आदेश / Order Aforesaid Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Years (Ays) 2004-05 To 2007-08 Arises Out Of The Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-1 [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] Dated 27.03.2009 & Ld. Cit(A)-4, Chennai Dated 30.01.2020.

172 (Ahmedabad-Trib.) that the assessee is a work contractor and not eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act. ITA Nos.565 to 568/Chny/2020 - 6 -: 9. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The only issue to adjudicate is whether the assessee-company is eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA(4

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Taxх, Central Circle -1, Trichy. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Shri Kumarasamy Ramakrishnan, Ramakrishna Poultry Farm, No.79, Main Road, Thalavapalayam, Karur, Tamil Nadu – 639 113. [Pan:Aagpr-3421-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकी ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit प्रत्यर्थीकी ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri.M.V.Prasad, C.A.& Shri.K.S.Rajendra Kumar, C.A. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, Dated 07.10.2024, 04.10.2024 &04.10.2024And Pertain To Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21&2018-19 Respectively. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order. :-2-:

disallowed the entire claim of the assessee made certain additions. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, against which the Revenue is in further appeals before us. 5. In regard to ground nos.2 to 4.2 for the AY 2018-19 raised by the Revenue, the learned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. DOOSAN POWER SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1149/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Doosan Power Systems India Income Tax, V. Private Limited, Corporate Circle -1(1), 18/2A, Sennerkuppam, Bye Chennai. Pass Road, Poonamallee, Chennai – 600 056. [Pan:Aabcb-5946-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

172 of the paper book filed on 04 July 2024). 8. IMPUGNED PAYMENTS ARE NOT IN NATURE OF ‘ROYALTY’ UNDER SECTION 9(1)(vi) OF THE ACT AS THE PAYMENTS WERE MERE SIMPLICITOR FREIGHT CHARGES; 8.1 The Ld.AR stated that in the Assessment order passed, the Ld. FAO referring to the explanation 2 of section

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

4 is noted to be against the disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs.9,65,562/- claimed by the assessee u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act in relation to energy saving devices falling under the block(s) of 80% and 100%. At the onset, the Ld. AR pointed out that, out of the total claim, sum of Rs.13,996/- relates

ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

disallowed u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. 10. The ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordiante Bench in the case of Ford India Ltd., Vs. DCIT in ITA No.643 & 840/Mds,/2015 dated 31.01.2017 for the assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 and it was held in para 76 to 78 as follows:- “76 We have heard

NEELAMALAI AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

4. The Commissioner of Income Tax should have found that in the light of the decision of the ‘C’ Bench of this Hon’ble Tribunal dated 7th November 2013 in ITA No.305/MDS/2013, also relating to assessment year 2009-2010, it is not permissible to make any disallowance under Section 14A of the Act unless the Assessing Officer proves that there

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. VIJAY DAIRY AND FARM PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUSIRI , TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

4 :: of 20,60,848 liters of milk which was quantified as difference in purchase of 20,60,848 liters of milk which was quantified as difference in purchase of 20,60,848 liters of milk which was quantified as difference in purchase during the course of survey. during the course of survey. 4.1 The facts as noted are that

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

4 -: assessee was provided accommodation entries to the extent of "22,06,000/-. Based on the above information, the Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 15.09.2014 by alleging that assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. In response to the said notice, Respondent- assessee filed letter dated

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

4 -: assessee was provided accommodation entries to the extent of "22,06,000/-. Based on the above information, the Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 15.09.2014 by alleging that assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. In response to the said notice, Respondent- assessee filed letter dated

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

4 -: assessee was provided accommodation entries to the extent of "22,06,000/-. Based on the above information, the Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 15.09.2014 by alleging that assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. In response to the said notice, Respondent- assessee filed letter dated