https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767027 In an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, the High Court held that interference was unavailable where the assessing authority, CIT(A) and the Tribunal had concurrently found purchases to be bogus and had sustained an estimated addition. The challenge amounted to re-appreciation of evidence, which lies outside the scope of a substantial question of law unless perversity is shown. As the findings were supported by material, did not ignore relevant evidence, and were not based on no evidence, no perversity was established. Authorities cited on supplier non-appearance were fact-specific and did not assist the taxpayers. No substantial question of law arose, and the appeals failed. en-us Wed, 05 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Feb 2026 10:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767027 In an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, the High Court held that interference was unavailable where the assessing authority, CIT(A) and the Tribunal had concurrently found purchases to be bogus and had sustained an estimated addition. The challenge amounted to re-appreciation of evidence, which lies outside the scope of a substantial question of law unless perversity is shown. As the findings were supported by material, did not ignore relevant evidence, and were not based on no evidence, no perversity was established. Authorities cited on supplier non-appearance were fact-specific and did not assist the taxpayers. No substantial question of law arose, and the appeals failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 05 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767027