https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386237 The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, condoning the delay in filing the appeal and admitting it for hearing. The disallowance of expenses under Section 40A(3) was partially accepted, only disallowing the amount paid to suppliers, not directly to farmers. The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner's invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was without jurisdiction, as the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous. The excess claim under the head purchase of paddy was explained and accepted by the Assessing Officer, leading to the Tribunal ruling in favor of the assessee and quashing the Principal Commissioner's order. en-us Fri, 20 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386237 The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, condoning the delay in filing the appeal and admitting it for hearing. The disallowance of expenses under Section 40A(3) was partially accepted, only disallowing the amount paid to suppliers, not directly to farmers. The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner's invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was without jurisdiction, as the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous. The excess claim under the head purchase of paddy was explained and accepted by the Assessing Officer, leading to the Tribunal ruling in favor of the assessee and quashing the Principal Commissioner's order. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 20 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386237