https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95810 The dominant issue was whether revision under s.263 was justified where the AO, after finding purchases to be bogus and goods not received, made disallowance under s.37(1) instead of invoking s.69C read with s.115BBE. Since s.69C applies where an expenditure is claimed but the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain its source, and the factual findings showed the expenditure was unexplained and unsupported by evidence of receipt of goods, the statutory preconditions for s.69C were met. The AO's resort to s.37(1), absent any controversy on commercial expediency, rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue; the revisionary directions were sustained and the assessee's challenge was rejected - ITAT en-us Wed, 07 Jan 2026 08:40:05 +0530 Wed, 07 Jan 2026 08:40:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95810 The dominant issue was whether revision under s.263 was justified where the AO, after finding purchases to be bogus and goods not received, made disallowance under s.37(1) instead of invoking s.69C read with s.115BBE. Since s.69C applies where an expenditure is claimed but the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain its source, and the factual findings showed the expenditure was unexplained and unsupported by evidence of receipt of goods, the statutory preconditions for s.69C were met. The AO's resort to s.37(1), absent any controversy on commercial expediency, rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue; the revisionary directions were sustained and the assessee's challenge was rejected - ITAT Highlights Income Tax Wed, 07 Jan 2026 08:40:05 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95810