S. 69C : Unexplained Expenditure – Bogus Purchases – Addition unsustainable when purchases supported by documents, payments through banking channel, sales accepted, and no cross-examination allowed – VAT authorities accepted purchases-Addition was deleted -Bombay High Court ruling in PCIT v . Kanak Impex(India ) Ltd [2025] 474 ITR 175 / 172 taxmann.com 283 (Bom)( HC) is distinguished .[ S.133(6), 144 ]

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure -Bogus Purchases – Only profit element to be taxed- Addition restricted to 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases- Bombay High Court ruling in PCIT v . Kanak Impex(India ) Ltd [2025] 474 ITR 175 / 172 taxmann.com 283 (Bom)( HC) is distinguished . [ S. 133(6), 147 , 148 ]

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure -Bogus Purchases – Hawala – Accommodation entries – Purchases duly supported by bills, cheque payments, confirmations, and accepted sales cannot be treated as bogus. Disallowance of entire purchases unjustified- Disallowance deleted- Bombay High Court ruling in PCIT v . Kanak Impex(India ) Ltd [2025] 474 ITR 175 / 172 taxmann.com 283 (Bom)( HC) is distinguished . [ S. 37(1) , 44AB , 133(6) ]

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure -Bogus Purchases – Estimation of profit element – When purchases were supported by bills, bank payments and sales not disputed, addition restricted to 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases; Bombay High Court ruling in PCIT v . Kanak Impex(India ) Ltd [2025] 474 ITR 175 / 172 taxmann.com 283 (Bom)( HC) is distinguished and held not applicable. [ S. 147 , 148 ]

S. 255 : Income tax Appellate Tribunal–Additional premises for the functioning of Court Rooms–Interim order of the High Court dated 28th June, 2000 allotting the premises to ITAT for the functioning of additional five court rooms is affirmed [S. 254, Art. 226]

S. 144C : Dispute Resolution Panel – Draft Assessment Order – Eligible assessee – Not an eligible assessee if TPO makes no variation – Assessment order without jurisdiction.- Quashed assessment order. [S. 92CA(3), 144C(15)(b) , Art. 226 ]

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Bogus purchases – Addition on estimation –Rejection of books oaf account – Penalty not leviable.[ S. 145(3) ,147, 148 , 260A ]

S. 192 : Deduction at source – Salary – Consultant doctors – No employer-employee relationship – TDS deductible u/s 194J – Income from business or profession-No substantial question of law – Contract – Annual Maintenance Contracts (AMCs) – Whether technical services – Matter remanded to the Tribunal to verify the contract . [S. 133A, 194C , 194J, 201(1), 201(1A), 260A ]

S. 56 : Income from other sources – Property received for inadequate consideration – Difference between agreement value and stamp duty value – Oral agreement supported by contemporaneous evidence –Agreement fixing the consideration and does not mandatorily require a written agreement – Change in stamp duty valuation method – Addition not sustainable- No binding precedent – Tribunal held that decision is based the facts and circumstances unique to assessee’s case and therefore the same cannot be applied as precedent in any other case. [S. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii), 69B ]

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Carry forward of deficit – Excess expenditure incurred by trust in earlier years – Set off against income of subsequent years – Permissible – Appeal of Revenue dismissed. [S. 11(1)(a), 11(1)(d), 260A .]