https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794255 The Revenue could not challenge the percentage of addition sustained by the Tribunal in an appeal under Section 260A where it had not appealed against the Commissioner (Appeals)' order. In an assessment involving alleged bogus purchases and unexplained expenditure, the Commissioner (Appeals) restricted the addition to 12.5% and the Tribunal reduced it further to 10%. Because the Revenue had accepted the appellate order of the Commissioner (Appeals), it was precluded from seeking enhancement of the addition before the HC. The Court held that no substantial question of law arose, and the Revenue's appeal failed. en-us Thu, 25 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Jul 2026 08:07:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794255 The Revenue could not challenge the percentage of addition sustained by the Tribunal in an appeal under Section 260A where it had not appealed against the Commissioner (Appeals)' order. In an assessment involving alleged bogus purchases and unexplained expenditure, the Commissioner (Appeals) restricted the addition to 12.5% and the Tribunal reduced it further to 10%. Because the Revenue had accepted the appellate order of the Commissioner (Appeals), it was precluded from seeking enhancement of the addition before the HC. The Court held that no substantial question of law arose, and the Revenue's appeal failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 25 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794255