https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313246 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Ld. Pr. CIT-29 Mumbai under clauses (a) and (d) of Explanation 2 to section 263(1) of the I.T. Act. The Tribunal found that the AO's assessment, which included a 6% addition for bogus purchases, was consistent with judicial precedents, contrary to the Ld. CIT's expectation of 100% additions. The Tribunal emphasized that the Ld. CIT's invocation of section 263 was unjustified, as it failed to consider factual details and established precedents regarding percentage additions in similar cases. en-us Fri, 02 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Apr 2024 04:54:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313246 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Ld. Pr. CIT-29 Mumbai under clauses (a) and (d) of Explanation 2 to section 263(1) of the I.T. Act. The Tribunal found that the AO's assessment, which included a 6% addition for bogus purchases, was consistent with judicial precedents, contrary to the Ld. CIT's expectation of 100% additions. The Tribunal emphasized that the Ld. CIT's invocation of section 263 was unjustified, as it failed to consider factual details and established precedents regarding percentage additions in similar cases. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 02 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313246