https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374534 The tribunal dismissed the application for rectification sought by the assessee regarding the disallowance for bogus purchases, maintaining the 12.5% disallowance determined based on substantial evidence. The tribunal upheld the validity of reopening, emphasizing the necessity of concrete evidence and rejecting the assessee's reliance on case laws not aligned with the case specifics. Despite challenges to the sufficiency of the Assessing Officer's enquiry and reliance on case laws, the tribunal affirmed its decision, highlighting the importance of factual analysis and evaluating evidence on a case-by-case basis. The tribunal's decision was guided by established legal principles and the specific evidence presented. en-us Wed, 23 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Feb 2019 07:04:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374534 The tribunal dismissed the application for rectification sought by the assessee regarding the disallowance for bogus purchases, maintaining the 12.5% disallowance determined based on substantial evidence. The tribunal upheld the validity of reopening, emphasizing the necessity of concrete evidence and rejecting the assessee's reliance on case laws not aligned with the case specifics. Despite challenges to the sufficiency of the Assessing Officer's enquiry and reliance on case laws, the tribunal affirmed its decision, highlighting the importance of factual analysis and evaluating evidence on a case-by-case basis. The tribunal's decision was guided by established legal principles and the specific evidence presented. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 23 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374534