https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308343 The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 30,00,000 under section 69C for alleged bogus purchases, as the appellant failed to provide substantial evidence countering the revenue authorities' findings. Despite arguments challenging the decision of the CIT(A) and the AO, including the invocation of section 69C and lack of evidentiary value of a recorded statement, the Tribunal found in favor of the revenue authorities due to insufficient proof of the purchases' genuineness and the absence of documentation demonstrating the cash recycling back to the appellant. en-us Wed, 23 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 18 Jun 2023 17:03:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308343 The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 30,00,000 under section 69C for alleged bogus purchases, as the appellant failed to provide substantial evidence countering the revenue authorities' findings. Despite arguments challenging the decision of the CIT(A) and the AO, including the invocation of section 69C and lack of evidentiary value of a recorded statement, the Tribunal found in favor of the revenue authorities due to insufficient proof of the purchases' genuineness and the absence of documentation demonstrating the cash recycling back to the appellant. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 23 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308343