https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378729 HC dismissed appeals and upheld the Tribunal and CIT(A) findings that purchases were bogus but that corresponding sales existed; therefore disallowance was restricted to 25%. The Court found the Commissioner (Appeals)'s factual finding-that goods were produced using the bulk drugs and that corresponding sales supported part of the purchases-was not challenged as perverse and, being concurrent with the Tribunal, did not raise a substantial question of law. The 25% restriction was treated as an estimate consistent with jurisdictional precedent, and no interference with the impugned order was warranted. en-us Tue, 05 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Oct 2025 14:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378729 HC dismissed appeals and upheld the Tribunal and CIT(A) findings that purchases were bogus but that corresponding sales existed; therefore disallowance was restricted to 25%. The Court found the Commissioner (Appeals)'s factual finding-that goods were produced using the bulk drugs and that corresponding sales supported part of the purchases-was not challenged as perverse and, being concurrent with the Tribunal, did not raise a substantial question of law. The 25% restriction was treated as an estimate consistent with jurisdictional precedent, and no interference with the impugned order was warranted. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 05 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378729