Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
HC ruled in favor of revenue department, reversing lower authorities' decision to apply 12.5% estimation on bogus purchases. Assessee failed to explain source of expenditure for alleged purchases during reassessment proceedings. Though assessee provided limited details of sundry debtors, creditors, and stocks before CIT(A), they did not establish transaction genuineness. Before Tribunal, assessee only sought percentage-based estimation without proving purchase authenticity. HC held AO justified in adding entire amount of unexplained expenditure under Section 69C, as partial allowance through profit estimation contradicts statutory provisions. Revenue's appeal allowed, rejecting assessee's claim of having discharged burden of proof regarding purchase genuineness and payment sources.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.