https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335406 The appeal involved the addition of alleged bogus purchases of machinery and disallowance of depreciation for the assessment year 2011-12. Despite suspicions of Hawala transactions, the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to verify physical delivery of the machinery. The First Appellate Authority upheld the addition, but the ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the assessee, noting proper recording in the books and VAT payment. The tribunal emphasized the lack of independent inquiry by the AO and deleted both additions, concluding that section 69 did not apply. en-us Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Dec 2016 13:58:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335406 The appeal involved the addition of alleged bogus purchases of machinery and disallowance of depreciation for the assessment year 2011-12. Despite suspicions of Hawala transactions, the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to verify physical delivery of the machinery. The First Appellate Authority upheld the addition, but the ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the assessee, noting proper recording in the books and VAT payment. The tribunal emphasized the lack of independent inquiry by the AO and deleted both additions, concluding that section 69 did not apply. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335406