On the basis of information was received from the Investigation Wing regarding bogus bills from entities linked to Pravin Kumar Jain. The AO disallowed 12.5% of total purchases (\u20b93.33 crore) as non-genuine, while CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to 4%, considering industry practices and VAT rates. The Revenue has filed an \u00a0additional ground relying on judgement of Bombay High Court\u00a0 PCIT v.\u00a0 Kanak Impex (India ) Ltd\u00a0 [2025] 172 taxmann.com 283 \/474 ITR 175 (Bom)( HC)\u00a0 urging that 100 % of alleged bogus purchases should be confirmed . Dismissing the appeal of the Revenue, \u00a0and up holding the order of the CIT( A)\u00a0 the Tribunal held that the assessee had filed all relevant documents including purchase bills, stock registers, and bank statements. The AO accepted sales and did not reject books of account. The Tribunal rejected Revenue\u2019s plea for 100% disallowance holding that \u00a0the Kanak Impex,(Supra)\u00a0 is \u00a0not applicable due to factual differences (non-cooperation in Kanak Impex vs. full compliance in present case). Followed ,\u00a0\u00a0 Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt Ltd. v. CIT(A)\u00a0 [2015] 372 ITR 619 (Bom) (HC) . (ITA 580\/ Mum\/ 20025 dt .30 -5 -2025)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 ( AY. 2007 -08 )<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure \u2013 Bogus purchases \u2013 Information from Investigation Wing \u2013 Addition restricted to 4% justified \u2013 Additional ground of Revenue to disallowance at 100% of alleged bogus purchases is rejected – No justification for 100% disallowance in absence of suppression of sales \u2013Books of account not rejected \u2013 PCIT v. Kanak Impex (India ) Ltd [2025] 172 taxmann.com 283\/ 474 ITR 175 (Bom)( HC) is referred . [ S.145, 147 , 148 ] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-55199","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-emj","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55199","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=55199"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55199\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":55202,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55199\/revisions\/55202"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55199"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55199"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55199"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}