https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279477 Additional evidence before the CIT(A) was found procedurally valid because the Assessing Officer was called for a remand report and had an opportunity to examine the material. On the substantive issue, an addition for alleged bogus purchases could not be sustained where the books of account, quantitative records, sales, and cheque-based purchase entries were not rejected or disproved, and no specific defect was established. The appellate relief was therefore maintained, while the Revenue's challenge and the cross-objection did not alter the outcome. en-us Wed, 27 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:44:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279477 Additional evidence before the CIT(A) was found procedurally valid because the Assessing Officer was called for a remand report and had an opportunity to examine the material. On the substantive issue, an addition for alleged bogus purchases could not be sustained where the books of account, quantitative records, sales, and cheque-based purchase entries were not rejected or disproved, and no specific defect was established. The appellate relief was therefore maintained, while the Revenue's challenge and the cross-objection did not alter the outcome. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 27 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279477