https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354755 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 2% of alleged bogus purchases, dismissing the revenue's appeal. The assessee provided evidence of material consumption in contract execution, leading to the conclusion that the entire purchase amount couldn't be disallowed based solely on suppliers being blacklisted. The Tribunal's ruling aligned with its previous decision in the assessee's case for A.Y. 2010-11, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence and considering the nature of the contractor's business to prevent revenue leakage. en-us Wed, 31 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Feb 2018 08:34:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354755 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 2% of alleged bogus purchases, dismissing the revenue's appeal. The assessee provided evidence of material consumption in contract execution, leading to the conclusion that the entire purchase amount couldn't be disallowed based solely on suppliers being blacklisted. The Tribunal's ruling aligned with its previous decision in the assessee's case for A.Y. 2010-11, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence and considering the nature of the contractor's business to prevent revenue leakage. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 31 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354755