https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427563 HC dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A) and ITAT in deleting the addition under s. 41(1). The AO's conclusion that purchases from the sister concern were bogus was solely based on an excise order that was subsequently set aside by CESTAT and attained finality, rendering the AO's premise unsustainable. The liability in question had been converted into an unsecured loan and was actually repaid in subsequent years, without being credited to the profit and loss account. The long-standing, running-account relationship between the firms was a concurrent factual finding. HC held that no substantial question of law arose. en-us Thu, 01 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Dec 2025 18:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427563 HC dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A) and ITAT in deleting the addition under s. 41(1). The AO's conclusion that purchases from the sister concern were bogus was solely based on an excise order that was subsequently set aside by CESTAT and attained finality, rendering the AO's premise unsustainable. The liability in question had been converted into an unsecured loan and was actually repaid in subsequent years, without being credited to the profit and loss account. The long-standing, running-account relationship between the firms was a concurrent factual finding. HC held that no substantial question of law arose. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 01 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427563