https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326637 The ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the appellant on both issues. Regarding the addition of commission under section 40(a)(ia), the Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO for further examination, noting the appellant's compliance with the first proviso to section 201(1) of the Act. Concerning the disallowance of purchases as bogus hawala transactions, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition, as the appellant sufficiently proved material receipt from the supplier. en-us Fri, 26 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Apr 2016 10:21:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326637 The ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the appellant on both issues. Regarding the addition of commission under section 40(a)(ia), the Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO for further examination, noting the appellant's compliance with the first proviso to section 201(1) of the Act. Concerning the disallowance of purchases as bogus hawala transactions, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition, as the appellant sufficiently proved material receipt from the supplier. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 26 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326637