https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56152 The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by reducing the disallowance to Rs. 27,02,752 and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s decisions on various grounds. The Tribunal upheld reductions made by the CIT(A) regarding low oil recovery from rapeseeds, introduction of oil cake, and disallowances for bogus purchases and related expenses. Additionally, the Tribunal found that section 40A(3) was not applicable to the transactions in question. The peak amount of unexplained investment was considered adequately covered by the disallowance already made. en-us Thu, 18 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56152 The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by reducing the disallowance to Rs. 27,02,752 and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s decisions on various grounds. The Tribunal upheld reductions made by the CIT(A) regarding low oil recovery from rapeseeds, introduction of oil cake, and disallowances for bogus purchases and related expenses. Additionally, the Tribunal found that section 40A(3) was not applicable to the transactions in question. The peak amount of unexplained investment was considered adequately covered by the disallowance already made. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 18 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56152