https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202728 The High Court held that the addition of Rs. 17,50,00,000 as unexplained expenditure under section 69C was not justified due to a typographical error in the reported consumption of rough diamonds by the appellant. The court found the appellant's records and affidavits supported the correct figures, overturning the Tribunal's decision. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, relieving the appellant from obligations and directing a refund or adjustment of the deposited amount against any outstanding demand. en-us Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 May 2023 15:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202728 The High Court held that the addition of Rs. 17,50,00,000 as unexplained expenditure under section 69C was not justified due to a typographical error in the reported consumption of rough diamonds by the appellant. The court found the appellant's records and affidavits supported the correct figures, overturning the Tribunal's decision. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, relieving the appellant from obligations and directing a refund or adjustment of the deposited amount against any outstanding demand. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202728