https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400315 HC allowed the appeal and answered five substantial questions of law in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. Disallowance under s.14A was limited to the exempt dividend amount (Rs.45,371), not the higher voluntary figure; cash purchase additions were rejected given small proportion (˜2%), H-forms and plausible explanations; additions under s.41(1) for unconfirmed creditors were deleted on available confirmations and consistent precedent; reductions for alleged undervaluation of closing stock stood due to lack of perversity in concurrent findings; and expenditures for staking/handling by a sister concern were sustained as genuine after scrutiny. en-us Thu, 29 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Nov 2025 10:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400315 HC allowed the appeal and answered five substantial questions of law in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. Disallowance under s.14A was limited to the exempt dividend amount (Rs.45,371), not the higher voluntary figure; cash purchase additions were rejected given small proportion (˜2%), H-forms and plausible explanations; additions under s.41(1) for unconfirmed creditors were deleted on available confirmations and consistent precedent; reductions for alleged undervaluation of closing stock stood due to lack of perversity in concurrent findings; and expenditures for staking/handling by a sister concern were sustained as genuine after scrutiny. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 29 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400315