https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292119 The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s restriction of disallowance to Rs. 19,52,056, as opposed to the AO's addition of Rs. 6,34,56,488, due to lack of third-party confirmation and inadequate evidence of bogus purchases. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the penalty for breach of contract, agreeing that such payments were not penalties for legal infringement. The Tribunal found no violation of Rule 46A(3) regarding additional evidence, affirming the CIT(A)'s comprehensive analysis and judgment. en-us Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Nov 2024 12:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292119 The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s restriction of disallowance to Rs. 19,52,056, as opposed to the AO's addition of Rs. 6,34,56,488, due to lack of third-party confirmation and inadequate evidence of bogus purchases. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the penalty for breach of contract, agreeing that such payments were not penalties for legal infringement. The Tribunal found no violation of Rule 46A(3) regarding additional evidence, affirming the CIT(A)'s comprehensive analysis and judgment. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292119