https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429360 Disputed transactions recorded in a notebook and D7 records were reflected in the day book and supported by purchase bills, so suppression was not proved and the entries could not be treated as unaccounted sales or purchases. On that basis, only a limited addition for any accounting defect could survive. The Court also applied the principle that revisional interference is unwarranted unless there is a patent error of law or perversity. The revisional order restoring the addition and penalty was therefore unsustainable and liable to be quashed. en-us Thu, 22 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Oct 2022 11:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429360 Disputed transactions recorded in a notebook and D7 records were reflected in the day book and supported by purchase bills, so suppression was not proved and the entries could not be treated as unaccounted sales or purchases. On that basis, only a limited addition for any accounting defect could survive. The Court also applied the principle that revisional interference is unwarranted unless there is a patent error of law or perversity. The revisional order restoring the addition and penalty was therefore unsustainable and liable to be quashed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 22 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429360