https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12700 The Delhi HC noted that an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act requires a substantial question of law, but the challenge in this matter concerned findings on alleged suppression of transactions. The Tribunal had examined seized books, supplier material, certificates and correspondence, and agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee's explanation was inconsistent and that the suppression finding was justified on the facts. As the conclusions depended on appreciation of evidence, direct sales, commission receipts and running accounts, the Court treated the issue as purely factual and held that no substantial question of law arose, so the appeal was not maintainable. en-us Tue, 24 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 May 2009 12:28:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12700 The Delhi HC noted that an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act requires a substantial question of law, but the challenge in this matter concerned findings on alleged suppression of transactions. The Tribunal had examined seized books, supplier material, certificates and correspondence, and agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee's explanation was inconsistent and that the suppression finding was justified on the facts. As the conclusions depended on appreciation of evidence, direct sales, commission receipts and running accounts, the Court treated the issue as purely factual and held that no substantial question of law arose, so the appeal was not maintainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 24 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12700