https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67950 Addition to declared trading income on the ground that agricultural purchases were bogus was not justified where the purchases were supported by village-official evidence identifying the agriculturists and their holdings, the Department relied mainly on a conflicting sarpanch statement and cash payment alone, and there was no evidence of suppressed or off-book sales. The comparable gross profit rate also supported the genuineness of the trading results. Cash purchase of agricultural produce was not barred by section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, so the addition could not rest on conjecture and was deleted. en-us Thu, 27 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:05:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67950 Addition to declared trading income on the ground that agricultural purchases were bogus was not justified where the purchases were supported by village-official evidence identifying the agriculturists and their holdings, the Department relied mainly on a conflicting sarpanch statement and cash payment alone, and there was no evidence of suppressed or off-book sales. The comparable gross profit rate also supported the genuineness of the trading results. Cash purchase of agricultural produce was not barred by section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, so the addition could not rest on conjecture and was deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 27 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67950