https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342688 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's appeal. The A.O. failed to provide conclusive evidence to prove the purchases were bogus, while the appellant substantiated the genuineness with detailed documentation. Mere suspicion or Sales Tax Department listing was deemed insufficient. The appellant's records were consistent, credible, and lacked evidence of cash return. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. en-us Mon, 08 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 May 2017 07:23:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342688 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's appeal. The A.O. failed to provide conclusive evidence to prove the purchases were bogus, while the appellant substantiated the genuineness with detailed documentation. Mere suspicion or Sales Tax Department listing was deemed insufficient. The appellant's records were consistent, credible, and lacked evidence of cash return. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 08 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342688