https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305345 The HC upheld the revision under section 263 by the PCIT, affirming that the AO was justified in estimating additions at 3% of the bogus purchases under section 69C. The assessee's acceptance of the allegation by offering a 2% addition without documentary evidence warranted further inquiry by the AO. The Tribunal's interference with the PCIT's order was held to be erroneous. Consequently, the revenue's appeals were allowed, and the Tribunal's order was set aside. en-us Fri, 15 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Jul 2025 10:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305345 The HC upheld the revision under section 263 by the PCIT, affirming that the AO was justified in estimating additions at 3% of the bogus purchases under section 69C. The assessee's acceptance of the allegation by offering a 2% addition without documentary evidence warranted further inquiry by the AO. The Tribunal's interference with the PCIT's order was held to be erroneous. Consequently, the revenue's appeals were allowed, and the Tribunal's order was set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 15 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305345