https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29240 The High Court of Madhya Pradesh ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the additions made by the Income Tax Officer under u/s 40A(2) were not justified. The Court found that the additional profit earned by the selling agent was not an expenditure incurred by the assessee but a result of selling bidis at a lower rate. Additionally, there was insufficient evidence to prove excessive pricing in the purchase of tobacco. Therefore, u/s 40A(2) was deemed inapplicable in both instances, resulting in a favorable outcome for the assessee. en-us Fri, 12 Dec 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:52:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29240 The High Court of Madhya Pradesh ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the additions made by the Income Tax Officer under u/s 40A(2) were not justified. The Court found that the additional profit earned by the selling agent was not an expenditure incurred by the assessee but a result of selling bidis at a lower rate. Additionally, there was insufficient evidence to prove excessive pricing in the purchase of tobacco. Therefore, u/s 40A(2) was deemed inapplicable in both instances, resulting in a favorable outcome for the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 12 Dec 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29240