https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356099 ITAT Jaipur declined admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A because the assessee did not satisfy any exception and had persistently failed to comply before the Assessing Officer. It sustained the trading addition on unverifiable purchases by applying a 15% restriction, upheld the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for admitted non-deduction of tax at source on part of the expenditure, and maintained the peak credit addition for cash deposits treated as a revolving trail with no contrary evidence. It also rejected the Chapter VI-A deduction claim for want of proof of LIC premium payment. The assessee's appeal failed on all grounds. en-us Mon, 19 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Feb 2018 08:23:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356099 ITAT Jaipur declined admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A because the assessee did not satisfy any exception and had persistently failed to comply before the Assessing Officer. It sustained the trading addition on unverifiable purchases by applying a 15% restriction, upheld the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for admitted non-deduction of tax at source on part of the expenditure, and maintained the peak credit addition for cash deposits treated as a revolving trail with no contrary evidence. It also rejected the Chapter VI-A deduction claim for want of proof of LIC premium payment. The assessee's appeal failed on all grounds. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 19 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356099