https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360605 HC upheld the order of CIT(A) restricting the addition on account of bogus purchases to the profit element embedded therein, rather than disallowing the entire expenditure under section 40A(3). It held that once the AO doubted genuineness of purchases, only the profit that escaped assessment could be brought to tax, not the whole purchase value. CIT(A) correctly aligned the assessee's gross profit rate with the preceding year and the extent of doubtful purchases. Finding no perversity or legal error, HC dismissed the revenue's appeal. en-us Wed, 25 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Dec 2025 14:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360605 HC upheld the order of CIT(A) restricting the addition on account of bogus purchases to the profit element embedded therein, rather than disallowing the entire expenditure under section 40A(3). It held that once the AO doubted genuineness of purchases, only the profit that escaped assessment could be brought to tax, not the whole purchase value. CIT(A) correctly aligned the assessee's gross profit rate with the preceding year and the extent of doubtful purchases. Finding no perversity or legal error, HC dismissed the revenue's appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 25 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360605