https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194938 Tribunal's addition of Rs. 37,30,300 as unexplained sales was upheld by the HC: bills lacked quantities, purchaser names, contained totaling errors and mode of transportation was unexplained, so transaction genuineness failed. The HC also declined to entertain challenges to disallowances under s.40(a)(ia) and partial disallowance of car expenses, car depreciation and telephone expenses because the respondent failed to pursue a separate appeal or cross-objections; no error warranting interference under s.260A was found. No substantial question of law arises. Decision against the assessee. en-us Fri, 11 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Sep 2025 11:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194938 Tribunal's addition of Rs. 37,30,300 as unexplained sales was upheld by the HC: bills lacked quantities, purchaser names, contained totaling errors and mode of transportation was unexplained, so transaction genuineness failed. The HC also declined to entertain challenges to disallowances under s.40(a)(ia) and partial disallowance of car expenses, car depreciation and telephone expenses because the respondent failed to pursue a separate appeal or cross-objections; no error warranting interference under s.260A was found. No substantial question of law arises. Decision against the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 11 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194938